backtop


Print 114 comment(s) - last by troysavary.. on Oct 22 at 4:45 PM

Lenovo latest tablet features an Intel Bay Trail-T processor

Lenovo is expanding its reach into the Windows 8.x tablet arena with the introduction of the new Miix2. The Miix2 is an 8.1” tablet that runs Windows 8.1.
 
Although the idea of a compact, 8.1” tablet running a full-blown version of Windows is admirable, one must also realize that the screen resolution is “only” 1280x800. With that said, Lenovo says that the display features a 178-degree viewing angle and features 10-point multi-touch.
 
When it comes to processing power, the Miix2 features an Intel Bay Trail-T quad-core processor paired with integrated seventh generation Intel HD Graphics. Storage duties are handled by either 32GB or 64GB of onboard eMMC storage. This, however, can be expanded thanks to an included microSD slot.
 
Other features include Bluetooth 4.0, 802.11n, 2MP front-facing camera, and a 5MP rear camera.

 
The tablet measures 5.18” x 8.48” x 0.32”, weighs just 0.77 pounds, and has up to seven hours of battery life.
 
The Miix2 will start at $299 for the 32GB version; the 64GB model will set you back $349. Lenovo is also selling a cover with an include stylus pen for $20. The tablet and its accessories will be available later this month.
 

Source: Lenovo



Comments     Threshold


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

Awesome
By datdamonfoo on 10/16/2013 1:13:39 PM , Rating: 4
My girlfriend wants an 8" tablet, and I was looking at the Toshiba Encore, which will be $350 when it comes out in November. She doesn't care about resolution, so $50 less for a similar tablet is a pretty good deal. Of course, I'll wait for some reviews to come in, but this one is at the top of my list.




Surface?
By synapse46 on 10/17/2013 8:33:46 AM , Rating: 4
So minus some hardware features this would be a more economical choice to the surface pro?




size wtf?
By Visual on 10/18/2013 7:22:07 AM , Rating: 2
so this has a 8.48" long side, but 8.1" diagonal... euclid is so lucky he didn't know what a bezel is. is there like a bezel-makers union organization secretly bribing tablet makers to play retards, or are they just naturals?

and how long will companies keep releasing devices without ever trying to use them? if the designer of this thing has spent even 10 minutes actually using it he'd have realized such resolution just does not work in portrait mode on windows OSes.

lack of a digitizer limits its target market only to people that never tried one so don't know what they're missing... which unfortunately are the majority, i guess, so companies are going to keep releasing such misunderstandings in the future.

the cpu is a good improvement on previous atoms, but still is not for me, especially on the gpu side.

still, for all its shortcomings, it does gain a nice reduction in weight and price, and just by being x86 it is already better than the arm-based jokes apple played on the world. so i guess it could make a good toy for a kid or someone that doesn't really need [much of] a computer.




Android?!
By Darksurf on 10/16/13, Rating: -1
32GB
By mik123 on 10/16/13, Rating: -1
RE: 32GB
By unplug on 10/16/2013 1:24:36 PM , Rating: 3
I have Surface RT 10.1" with 1366x768 res. It looks stunning. I also have a surface pro with 1920x1080, without scaling, it's like looking at ants, almost impossible to work with.


RE: 32GB
By XZerg on 10/16/2013 1:39:46 PM , Rating: 5
The resolution (dpi) insanity of late is a fad imho. There is a particular dpi, around 300dpi, when human eyes can't discern one pixel from another. 1280x1024 may look great at certain screen size and specifically for usage model. I have a 1080p 15.6" laptop and if I were to connect it to a keyboard and mouse and use it on a desk, it is essentially eye straining to read standard-sized text without any scaling. Take away the keyboard and mouse and use the laptop on lap then it looks and is great. The same concept everywhere else, phone, tablets, laptops, tvs, ...

Many companies are launching very high dpi screens but then rely on scaling to make it humanly readable - pretty much dropping the resolution (3200x1800 becomes 1600x900). So only certain graphics benefit from the higher dpi but again that benefit is limited to humanly discernable dpi.


RE: 32GB
By inighthawki on 10/16/2013 2:13:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Many companies are launching very high dpi screens but then rely on scaling to make it humanly readable - pretty much dropping the resolution (3200x1800 becomes 1600x900). So only certain graphics benefit from the higher dpi but again that benefit is limited to humanly discernable dpi.

The goal of a high DPI display is not about adding more workspace, it's about providing crisper visuals. Text and curved shapes are smoother and provide noticeably less aliasing around the edges. To say "only certain graphics benefit from a higher DPI" is grossly overgeneralizing the purpose.


RE: 32GB
By Flunk on 10/16/2013 2:38:47 PM , Rating: 3
The big thing here is we are going to hit the limit where resolution doesn't matter anymore on every device and we're going to hit it soon.


RE: 32GB
By YearOfTheDingo on 10/16/2013 4:34:45 PM , Rating: 1
I think we're pretty there already in the mobile space. Modern OSes employ sub-pixel rendering to draw text, which effectively triple the resolution. Even a low-end device with a 200 DPI screen has more than enough resolution. The only area where improvement is still worthwhile is e-Ink technology.


RE: 32GB
By Ktracho on 10/16/2013 5:08:34 PM , Rating: 3
Someone should have told the printer manufacturers 30 years ago that there was no point in developing printers with more resolution than they already had back then (300 DPI was state of the art), as no one reads text with his/her nose against the paper! Of course, publishing houses were already at 2400 DPI by that time, but I guess since the internet was not readily available, nobody complained.


RE: 32GB
By damianrobertjones on 10/16/2013 5:35:33 PM , Rating: 1
There is a reason to create higher res screens but increasing the DPI removes the value of added/increased WORKING space. Really... there is ZERO point in a crazy DPI when you still see the same space as a 1366x768 screen


RE: 32GB
By YearOfTheDingo on 10/16/2013 8:33:12 PM , Rating: 2
Laser printers have to use dithering to simulate shades, so the situation isn't analogous.


RE: 32GB
By Ktracho on 10/17/2013 11:52:03 AM , Rating: 2
How many shades between black and white do you need to reproduce letters like "A"? I guess I wasted a lot of time trying to print my thesis at 300 DPI with small margins, and then taking it to the copy shop to reduce it so it would fit within the mandated margins, all just to simulate higher than 300 DPI.


RE: 32GB
By Totally on 10/17/2013 4:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent point!! We never print images or photographs, and of course that old color printing myth has been debunked. /sarcasm


RE: 32GB
By Helbore on 10/16/2013 4:52:03 PM , Rating: 2
We're already there, except for the idiots who like to read with their noses rubbing against the screen of their device.


RE: 32GB
By Mitch101 on 10/16/2013 4:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
That exactly the comment I should have said instead of getting into a war over DPI.


RE: 32GB
By Mitch101 on 10/16/2013 2:45:46 PM , Rating: 1
By the way people were ranting about plasma being so much better than LCD in the other DT articles and Plasma being discontinued then every LCD screen is just crap no matter what resolution.

I have 20/30 vision I find the resolution to be perfectly fine without suffering.


RE: 32GB
By superstition on 10/16/2013 3:12:36 PM , Rating: 3
Plasma is a great television technology for a number of reasons. It also is not useful for portable devices due to power consumption. So, your comparison is moot.


RE: 32GB
By Mitch101 on 10/16/2013 4:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
Its more about it being a Windows Device that some people have a problem with more than the resolution. They just choose to find a spec and single it out.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/13, Rating: -1
RE: 32GB
By inighthawki on 10/16/2013 4:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think there is a big difference between "fine" and "good." As I've mentioned in other replies, I don't think 768p is a good resolution either (and Microsoft made a dumb move by making the surface 1 768p) but by and large I would still say that the resolution is perfectly usable. If 768p was truly unacceptable nobody would buy it, even with a lower pricetag.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 4:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed... I was initially commenting to the descrition of the 10 inch 1366x768 as "stunning"... Ummm No, unless "Stunning" means painfully low resolution.


RE: 32GB
By Mitch101 on 10/16/2013 4:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
1366x768 is low resolution on 10" screen. Must be unusable.

Whats the DPI on 42" 1080P? Im guessing you cant watch TV being so painfully low resolution. 720P content must be out of the question. Do you call your cable company and complain?


RE: 32GB
By inighthawki on 10/16/2013 4:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are missing his point. As he just mentioned, he is commenting about the OP's use of the word 'stunning,' which 768p on a 10" device is far from.

Also 10" at 768p cannot be compared to a 720p TV because of the significant difference in distance. The perception of a pixel at those distances is significantly different.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 4:38:11 PM , Rating: 2
Are you having issues understanding the tech again? The closer you are to the screen the higher DPI you need. Sitting on a couch/chair 6-10+ feet from the TV is NOT the same as holding a phone or tablet 10-12 inches from your face!

Why do you keep defending poor tech?


RE: 32GB
By Mitch101 on 10/16/2013 4:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I fully comprehend DPI and Distances. Your just mocking specs.

http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/extremewindows/...

Optimizing Multi-Mon DPI Scaling in Windows 8.1
If you are running a screen resolution of 1366x768 on a tablet, chances are that UI will look good at 100% DPI settings.

It’s interesting to note that my Nokia 920 (held at 9”) has the same effective DPI as the 32” Sharp 4K display (viewed at 22”).

At about what 18" away nobody will care you just picked a spec that isn't 1920 or better and claiming its low resolution and will be painful to use.

Are you holding the tablet 9" from your face?


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 5:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
Your own posts are proving my point... I posted the below, but... Lets use your phone as a baseline.

N 920: 1280x768@4.5 inches = 332PPI (pretty good)
The tablet above: 1280x800@8.1 inches = 186 PPI (bad)
Surface RT 1366x768@ 10.1 inches = 155.16 (LOL)

Above 300 PPI for phones and tablets is where most people see diminishing returns. Your phone is quite good, especially since its IPS w/ no subpixels. Great! Now comparing it to the Surface and the one above, 186 and 155 are really bad. All 3 are handheld computing devices that people hold an average of 10-14 inches from thier face...

Thus Apple's 12 inch retina baseline. Your phone beats it... Those tablets arent even close. That it and thats all.


RE: 32GB
By ClownPuncher on 10/16/2013 5:29:49 PM , Rating: 2
10.1" at 10 inches from your face? That's crazy close. I don't even put my phone that close to my face. 18" at the bare minimum.


RE: 32GB
By inighthawki on 10/16/2013 5:33:40 PM , Rating: 3
10-12" is not uncommon at all. It is the same distance most people will read a book at. If you claim 18" 'minimum' then I would infer that you either have poor vision at close range, and you will probably need reading glasses soon, or you are grossly overestimating the length between your eyes and your hand.


RE: 32GB
By ClownPuncher on 10/16/2013 5:53:24 PM , Rating: 2
Neither. I can read small text up close and far away. I just did a ruler test and ~18" it is. I hold a book 12-14" from my face.

Holding a 10" display 10" from your face is incredibly close.


RE: 32GB
By inighthawki on 10/16/2013 9:03:18 PM , Rating: 3
You must have incredibly long arms, then. I just did a ruler test myself and found to hold my phone an average of exactly 12" from my face, and a tablet at 14". Just for the heck of it, I measured out 18" and held it there and it was a pretty uncomfortable length to hold the device at. And for the record, I'm pretty above average in height (6' 1") and have a relative long arm-span compared to most people.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 5:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
12 inches from face is where Apple did their "retina" spec from. It is where most people hold phones. TAblets may be a bit further on average, but the point is... Phones and tablets are held in your hands, and cannot be compared to TV's that sit across the room.


RE: 32GB
By Mitch101 on 10/16/2013 7:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
At a normal viewing distance it doesn't matter. 1366x768 is perfectly fine you stuck on the specs instead of the average viewing distance. Unless your 9 inches from the screen then 300 dpi might be required.


RE: 32GB
By superstition on 10/16/2013 6:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
The content on my 1080p TV is pretty awful when compared to the Retina display on my iPhone 5.

But, I don't have a BluRay player.


RE: 32GB
By damianrobertjones on 10/16/2013 5:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
The Radiance screen on the Envy 13 was, simply, stunning. It was only 1366x768 but the clarity, brightness, colour reproduction was amazing.

I'll say it again: 1366x768. The ipad can only DREAM of having that kind of quality


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 5:56:50 PM , Rating: 1
It may have good quality in terms of "clarity, brightness, colour reproduction" - it can be the best ever made, but 13 inches at 1366x768 makes it pure crap.


RE: 32GB
By Mitch101 on 10/16/2013 4:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
Thankyou had I actually valued your opinions on DT that may have hurt.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 2:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
"The goal of a high DPI display is not about adding more workspace, it's about providing crisper visuals"

That is true to an extent, but when it gets to the low end lin 768 hor. lines its about adding more workspace too.


RE: 32GB
By inighthawki on 10/16/2013 2:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
True, but I was referring primarily to things like the new 3200x1800 displays like on the Samsung ATIV Book Pro or the Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro, etc. Of course, the size of the display will also determine what kind of workspace requirements you will use it for. I would suspect a 30" monitor would benefit from the greater workspace increase of a super high resolution like 4K significantly more than a 15" display simply due to everything being too tiny to effectively use the space. Would you agree?


RE: 32GB
By purerice on 10/22/2013 2:23:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The goal of a high DPI display is not about adding more workspace, it's about providing crisper visuals.


Really? I use an older 20" display on my desktop with 1680x1050 resolution and a laptop with 1440x900. I would LOVE for either to double (technically quadruple) not for the crisper visuals but for the workspace. I guess that's the difference between those who use computers to consume and those who use computers to produce.


RE: 32GB
By rippleyalienshakd on 10/16/2013 9:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
I Disagree with your DPI- Since 199x, the Thirst for Higher Resolution with Computer personal, has only increased. will continue, forever.. What looks good to you at 720P, looks horrible to an Apple Retina User. Same with 1080P. IT takes youre eyes, a good 2 Weeks, to get fully used to it, then bamm, Everything in lower resolution, just looks horrible.

If you doubt, just look at a 1080P 32" Screen, and Run a game.. Try the same game on a 480,ala OLD TUBE. You wont want to scale down.

Once you hit 4K, then EVERY single display you see, suddenly looks like Kmart TV's. IT is the user getting used to that level of detail, that causes the change. Every human can actually see 8K (16MP), You see it every day in life. Once it is on a screen, the Changing from 1 image to another is what you notice the first time. IF Doubting more, Think of your Favorite IMAX Movie. Say- Avengers.. Then look at it at home, on a 1080P.. IT will look horrible. Something you cant really tell why, but it does.
1080P=2MP Image.
2160P=8MP Image.

Both are transmitted to a user at 24 fps (Movie standard). So 24x MP X however many seconds in movie=the Amount of information that the human Brain, has to decode, as to understand the movie. That is why the IMAX Rocks's.. Gaining popularity.. Standard movie's just dont look as good, even though- it is the exact same Movie.

Size doesnt matter, it is the Resolution. Imax=3840x2160.. A LOT more detailed Images are thrown at you, versus the el-cheapo movie.

So yes.. Resolution does indeed matter. DPI, does matter. One of those, "you have to use the Ipad Retina", to really understand the difference.. IT is the DPI.. Which is Resolution.


RE: 32GB
By althaz on 10/16/2013 11:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with a lot of what you said, however...
quote:
What looks good to you at 720P, looks horrible to an Apple Retina User. Same with 1080P.

1920x1080 (at <12") is better than "retina" spec by Apple's own definition and is indistinguishable (in terms of resolution) from the Retina iPad at 18" (eg: fairly close to your face for a tablet) if you have 20/20 vision. If you have 20/15 vision (eg: good to very-good vision, covering about 95% of the population) 1080p at 11" is "retina" class at about 24" (for reference Apple states that 22"-28" is the common distance to hold a large tablet from your face).

So even the makers of the "retina" display say that 1080p is better than retina class on 10"-12" tablets.

There is a limit to the benefit you get from increased resolution and that limit has been reached on tablets already (more or less). As tablets get lighter and we switch away from backlit screens increased resolution will become more important as it becomes easier to hold a tablet closer.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 1:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
" 10.1" with 1366x768 res. It looks stunning."

You need your eyes checked.


RE: 32GB
By Mitch101 on 10/16/2013 2:38:10 PM , Rating: 2
Do your eyes make that Nanananananana sound when you look?

How can you stand to watch HDTV today it must be painful?


RE: 32GB
By inighthawki on 10/16/2013 2:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
Because almost every modern HDTV is 1080p and sits further than 1 foot in front of your face?


RE: 32GB
By ClownPuncher on 10/16/2013 3:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
You're holding a tablet 1 foot from your face? I always have them 2-3 feet from my eyeballs.


RE: 32GB
By inighthawki on 10/16/2013 3:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
I would love to see the person who holds a tablet 3' away from their eyes. That's impressive considering there are relatively few people on the planets who have an arm length of 3'. Not to mention when you hold a tablet you do not hold it at arms length.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 4:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
He may be holding it between his knees ;)


RE: 32GB
By ClownPuncher on 10/16/2013 5:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
You can set them down on stuff.


RE: 32GB
By inighthawki on 10/16/2013 5:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
True, but most people interact with phones and tablets by holding them. It's pretty rare to set them down. Even then, we're still talking 2-3ft versus 10ft+


RE: 32GB
By ClownPuncher on 10/16/2013 5:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not disputing the PPI claims, just distance claims.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 3:03:29 PM , Rating: 2
I have no clue what you are talking about... But if you like low res screens, go right ahead... I am just saying if you think 10.1" with 1366x768 res. looks "stunning." at the range a tablet is held, you need to have your eyes checked because there is an issue with your close range vision. Alot of people settle for it because Windows scales so horribly its too small with a decent screen, but that isnt a screen quality issue, its an OS DPI scaling issue.


RE: 32GB
By unplug on 10/16/2013 3:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
My eyes are fine and you've never used a Surface RT.


RE: 32GB
By inighthawki on 10/16/2013 3:52:19 PM , Rating: 3
As someone who has fine vision and owns/uses a Surface RT, I will say that it is acceptable and perfectly usable but far from what I would consider good or great.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 3:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
Iv'e played with a few display models in teh stores and I can tell you absolutely positively the res is far lower than I would like it to be, for both screen real-esate and quality purposes. Considering MS upped the new models (Surface 2 ande 2 Pro) both have 1080p, so someone somewhere must agree.


RE: 32GB
By unplug on 10/16/2013 4:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
People are obsessed with specs, especially the resolution spec, and will only purchase based on that spec, which is very sad.


RE: 32GB
By inighthawki on 10/16/2013 4:09:29 PM , Rating: 3
As long as there is a rational reason for desiring that spec, I don't see how that's an issue. Obviously if Samsung made their next Android phone with a single core processor and 256MB of ram, but featured a 4K display, it would be utterly stupid to buy it because of the display due to how impractical 4K is on that screen and the severe limitations of the other specs. But what is wrong with wanting a certain set of requirements? If someone likes really crisp and smooth text and graphics, let them invest and fight for higher res displays.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 4:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
"People are obsessed with specs"

As the LCD spec directly relates to both the image quality and amount of screen real estate you get then yes, absolutely. 1366 x 768 is not enough screen real estate for me and not sharp enough for a 10 inch tablet screen. If its good for you, then great. YOu saved money by not having to buy a higher quality product, but dont act like people that want a better screen are just doing it for the #'s. The screen is the most important thing. It's the part you look at and interface with 100% of the time.


RE: 32GB
By Mitch101 on 10/16/2013 4:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
I would think that 1080p 10" screen manufacturing has become the norm and cost effective to use over the lower resolution screens.

At some point the new manufacturing process equals or surpasses the previous manufacturing process and its better to manufacture one line than to have multiple.


RE: 32GB
By Mitch101 on 10/16/2013 4:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
I don't recall saying it was stunning but I find it far from unacceptable as you would make it out to be.

This isn't a high end device and Microsoft is not Apple were one size fits all. You don't like the specs buy a different device.

We get it you don't have to make 100 posts on a Microsoft article we got it the first 100 Microsoft articles you felt the need to post negatively on.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 4:25:19 PM , Rating: 1
I will post where I want to post. Your just butt hurt because its MS. Had it been about any other company you wouldnt care and you know it.


RE: 32GB
By Mitch101 on 10/16/2013 4:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
Why would I feel butt hurt? So sad you think I care that much.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 4:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you cant handle anyone that doesnt like anything about any MS product, and you get all pissy about it, then start defending lousy specs... So you tell me. What gives? Why do you feel butt hurt?


RE: 32GB
By Mitch101 on 10/16/2013 5:05:57 PM , Rating: 2
No I just know your full of crap or as the poster above said read with the screen so close you get nose smears on it.

At arms length the resolution is perfectly fine your making it out like were looking at CGA and Im calling you out on it.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 5:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
Arms length. Try 12 inches. Who the hell holds thier arms straight out and reads their phone or tablet?

See my last post, it is a very standardized # and viewing distance.


RE: 32GB
By troysavary on 10/16/2013 8:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know anyone who hold a tablet up close to there face. If they are sitting, which is the most common usage scenario for a tablet, they either rest it on their lap, or hold it in hands with forearms resting on lap. Maybe people are shorter where you live, but where I come from, the lap is more than 12 inches from the face.

Even if they are using a tablet standing up, it is generally with arms at side and forearm bent parallel to ground so tablet is at belly or sternum level. Still greater than 12 inches. Who holds it up at face level?


RE: 32GB
By inighthawki on 10/16/2013 4:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't recall saying it was stunning but I find it far from unacceptable as you would make it out to be.

*You* didn't, but the OP did (very first comment) which is what his counter claim is all about. I don't think anyone here is stating that unusable or anything, simply that it's not 'stunning' and certainly not on the scale of 'great' either.


RE: 32GB
By inighthawki on 10/16/2013 4:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, it's actually the second comment, not the first.


RE: 32GB
By Da W on 10/16/13, Rating: 0
RE: 32GB
By inighthawki on 10/16/2013 2:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
I also have a Surface RT, and while I feel that the 768p screen is acceptable for the screen size, it is FAR from what I would call stunning. Also the purpose of high resolutions is not to make things tiny. At the risk of sounding like Steve Jobs, you're using it wrong. High DPI devices are meant to be scaled so that you get very crisp and smooth edges on things like text that would normally produce visible aliasing on a lower resolution display of the same size.


RE: 32GB
By michael67 on 10/16/2013 1:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
Agree, 800p is just to low res.

Self am i looking for a 13~15'' ISP with something like a 2560x1600 resolution, 10'' is nice and portable, but tings like browsing and photo's are better on a bigger screen, and even a 15'' you can still easily hold in your hands.


RE: 32GB
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2013 1:30:36 PM , Rating: 4
Were you people not alive when the average resolution was 1024x768?


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 1:43:09 PM , Rating: 1
Alive and hated it. PC's were 16 bit too, and we have moved on. Progress is a good thing, and no multimedia device in 2013 should have 768 horizontal lines... Awful.


RE: 32GB
By Flunk on 10/16/2013 2:33:24 PM , Rating: 4
640x480 was "high resolution" at one point.

Doom ran at 320x200.


RE: 32GB
By Reclaimer77 on 10/17/2013 3:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
640x480 was "high resolution" at one point.


Wrong. Horribly wrong.

480p was the NTSC standard. It was never, at any point, considered "high resolution". Not ever.

I can't believe this discussion is going on as long as it has. What exactly are you people trying to say? That you DON'T want technology to progress?

I think some people like Mitch are so hellbent on defending anything Microsoft, they're actually putting forth the argument that display quality shouldn't matter. The screen! Something you look at 100% of the time you use a mobile device.

But I'm not pointing fingers too much. I remember when the iPad 3 came out with it's mind boggling resolution, I and others were so biased against the company, we convinced ourselves and manufactured arguments that it was no "big deal". That nothing "needed" that many pixels. Bla bla bla

Guess what? We were wrong. Yup, I'm standing up and admitting it. The gains in image quality and sharpness of going high res simply cannot be discounted, no matter how much you want to think otherwise.


RE: 32GB
By troysavary on 10/22/2013 4:45:06 PM , Rating: 2
That was considered high res in PCs at one time. Going from CGA to VGA was considered a huge step. But you must be too young to know that. If you are going to accuse someone of being "Wrong. Horribly wrong" at least know WTF you are talking about.


RE: 32GB
By Mitch101 on 10/16/2013 2:47:01 PM , Rating: 2
I think we've entered the spec generation.


RE: 32GB
By HoosierEngineer5 on 10/17/2013 8:13:51 AM , Rating: 2
640 x 480.

Also 128 x 48, in both colors, black AND white. And, we played games!


RE: 32GB
By lagomorpha on 10/17/2013 11:06:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
both colors, black AND white


Don't you mean either orange and black or green and black?


RE: 32GB
By Reclaimer77 on 10/17/2013 3:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Were you people not alive when the average resolution was 1024x768?


Yes and then 1080p and higher came out, and we all realized how much better it was. And magically, we had NO desire to go back to 1024x768.

Also, it's been pointed out a gillion times, we weren't viewing those 768p devices a foot or so from our faces.


RE: 32GB
By EasyC on 10/16/2013 2:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
2560x1600 is useless on anything smaller than 15-17". Windows scales horribly at high DPI. 1080p is the highest I would go on a 13" screen size with windows.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 2:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
Windows does scale like crap... But poor OS DPI scaling does not excuse poor quality screens. MS needs to fix the OS to scale better. Sadly, it was designed around the mediocre 1024x768 and later 1366x768 screens that we have been plagued with.


RE: 32GB
By Mitch101 on 10/16/2013 4:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
Really?
http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/extremewindows/...

It’s interesting to note that my Nokia 920 (held at 9”) has the same effective DPI as the 32” Sharp 4K display (viewed at 22”) . You can’t see the pixels in either display at these distances. (EXCEPT RECLAIMER CAN) On Windows 7 and Windows 8 I’ve noticed that some UI is hard to see at this effective DPI. In addition to being hard to see, it can also be challenging to interact with UI when using a mouse.

In order to address these scale/DPI issues, in Window 8.1 the maximum DPI scaling value was increased from 150% to 200%. This additional scaling capability provides two distinct advantages for high-DPI displays on Windows 8.1:

UI can scale larger which makes readability better and touch/mouse interactions easier.
200% scaling enables pixel-doubling for up-scaling which provides a clear and crisp appearance for images, graphics, and text.


RE: 32GB
By Mitch101 on 10/16/2013 4:41:56 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry said Reclaimer when I meant Retrospooty. So hard to tell trolls apart sometime.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 4:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
If they improved it on Win 8.1 good.

BTW, make it easy on yourself using your own phone...

N 920: 1280x768@4.5 inches = 332PPI (pretty good)
The tablet above: 1280x800@8.1 inches = 186 PPI (bad)
Surface RT 1366x768@ 10.1 inches = 155.16 (LOL)


RE: 32GB
By Mitch101 on 10/16/2013 5:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
99% of the people at arms length dont care and find it perfectly acceptable.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 5:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
99% of people have working elbows.


RE: 32GB
By ClownPuncher on 10/16/2013 5:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
You can't prove that. You're being paid off by the elbow lobby.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 5:36:51 PM , Rating: 2
Damn... You got me. And here I bet my co-workers in the Elbow fellowship that no-one would ever figure it out. I lost... Due to my own sloppy posting.


RE: 32GB
By inighthawki on 10/16/2013 5:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
Don't undersell it retro, it's at least 99.99%, and that's probably also pretty generous. :)


RE: 32GB
By inighthawki on 10/16/2013 5:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody holds phones or tablets at arms length. Try it sometime with your own phone or tablet, you'll look like a moron who forgot to put on his reading glasses. Plus it'll be pretty difficult to interact with, particularly on a tablet.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 5:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
I actually just stood here for a minute looking at my phone at ARM's length. People walked by my office and looked at me like I was insane. It looks ridiculous... No-one holds them at ARM's length. My elbows are good to me.


RE: 32GB
By ClownPuncher on 10/16/2013 5:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
That never happened. Nobody walked by your office and though, "damn, this guy must be crazy!! I can tell by how far away his phone is from his face!!"

I think you're insane because you just made up a story and tried to pass it off as real. :)


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 6:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
Dood, I just did it and it happened. Go do it in a mirror with your elbow unbent and you will see how ridiculous it looks. No-one holds their phone, tablet, book or any other device they look at that way. No-one.


RE: 32GB
By ClownPuncher on 10/16/2013 6:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
Nor do I. I agree with you on that one. Fully outstretched arms would be incredibly uncomfortable.


RE: 32GB
By Reclaimer77 on 10/16/2013 9:45:59 PM , Rating: 2
Arms length? Wtf. Who holds a mobile device at arms length?


RE: 32GB
By michael67 on 10/16/13, Rating: 0
RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/17/2013 8:33:40 AM , Rating: 2
Its just math. I used this one. http://pixeldensitycalculator.com/

and a 13 inch screen isnt a tablet, its a laptop and not held as close. You dont seem to get the distance part of the equasion. a 1080p 55 inch TV looks OK from across the room, a 10 inch 1366x768 tablet does not look good (to me) when held in my hands... Period.


RE: 32GB
By Reclaimer77 on 10/17/2013 3:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly who decided that there are no benefits in higher resolution beyond your ability to not see pixels anymore?

These arguments are asinine. You and Mitch should be ashamed!


RE: 32GB
By rsmech on 10/16/2013 10:34:10 PM , Rating: 2
Your stuck on specs.

This is your logic.

Bugatti Veyron 257 mph - great
2013 Corvette 205 - good
Anything else unacceptable.

Or we could use towing capacity as the gauge.

What do you own? Don't tell me it's not the same. YOU choose DPI as the make or break standard. I choose speed for cars. So any car that doesn't do 205 mph sucks.

You may think this is a ridiculous analogy but the point is so does getting stuck on one spec.


RE: 32GB
By Flunk on 10/16/2013 2:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you never use desktop monitors or HDTVs then. 1920x1080 @ 42" must just be too unbearable.

1280x800 on a 8.1" tablet isn't too bad. I once owned a 10.1" ASUS transformer pad with that same resolution and the picture was quite good. Yes, it could conceivably be higher, but it's hardly that bad.

P.S. a higher resolution on a 8.1" Windows tablet would be totally unusable.


RE: 32GB
By mik123 on 10/16/2013 3:12:36 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, 1080 on 42" is absolutely unbearable when it sits closer than 2 feet from your face.

I can easily tell the difference between 720 and 1080 on a phone. 1080 just looks better, period. Just recently I was at BB looking at Galaxy Note 8 - resolution there looks horrible. Same goes for iPad mini. Larger iPad is fine, but I can still see pixels there.


RE: 32GB
By Da W on 10/16/13, Rating: 0
RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 3:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
I had an N7 2012 and loved it. The only thing I didnt like was the res. It was standard for that size screen in 2012, but the 2013 model aces it. The screen is stunning at 1920x1200. I love my N7 2013 as well, ya, it s faster and feels better in your hand, but the single biggest improvement is the screen.


RE: 32GB
By Da W on 10/16/13, Rating: 0
RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/17/2013 8:36:46 AM , Rating: 2
Zero bragging. The N7 is a cheap $200 tablet that almost anyone can grab. My point is that its cheap and standard... We are discussing specs, and specifically how 1366x768 isnt particularly good on a 10 inch screen. Like I said above , even MS is putting 1920x1080 in the next Surface 2 (ARM/RT variant) so eat it.


RE: 32GB
By tayb on 10/16/13, Rating: 0
RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 4:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
"A 1080p screen for this size is an absolute waste. It will kill performance, kill battery life, and drive up the price. And the benefit is nothing."

Dozens of products with better screens, performance and battery life would tend to moot your point.

Yes, there is a point where enough is enough, but its NOT 1280x800 at 8 inches - that is only 189 PPI . Anyone can go look at a Nexus 7 2012 vs 2013 and see the massive improvement in the screen at 7 inches 1280x800 (216 PPI) vs 1920x1200 (324 PPI).


RE: 32GB
By damianrobertjones on 10/16/2013 5:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh. Ok... People complained that EVERYTHING was FAR too small on the Surface pro... 1080p. If you stick 1080p on an 8" tablet you'll go absolutely blind. Ok, increase the DPI then... Once you've finished doing that, say 150%, you might as well drop straight to 1600x900 as you've LOST a whole load of working screen space.

The Android tablets and iPad basically whack up the DPI so you see the same damn thing. Under windows it's different.


RE: 32GB
By retrospooty on 10/16/2013 6:07:09 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed. Windows DPI scaling is totally broken. Poor DPI scaling in the OS is a separate issue than poor resolution. Windows just doesnt work well on a small tablet because of its 1/2 useless DPI scaling.


RE: 32GB
By damianrobertjones on 10/16/2013 5:33:39 PM , Rating: 2
After tweaking a little bit you CAN have 15gb of free space


RE: 32GB
By thorr2 on 10/16/2013 7:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, I loved reading all of that insightful information about the limits of 32GB of disk space. It must have been hundreds of posts dedicated to your 32GB post. ;-)

In all seriousness, it seems kind of silly to have any less than 64GB these days as a minimum if the device is going to be something that people want to keep and use for a decent amount of time. This is especially true for a Windows PC with so many huge applications.

Oh, and I am firmly in the more resolution is better camp as long as it is done right and looks great. Pictures from my DSLR with all of those pixels would look stunning.


RE: 32GB
By PitViper007 on 10/17/2013 9:25:23 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
1280x800 does not belong on any screen over 4 inch.


I don't know about that, as my 13" MacBook Pro runs at the same resolution and looks great. You also have many, MANY Windows laptops that run at that resolution or lower, the typical resolution being 1366 x 768. Some of those machines running that resolution are even running on screens as large as 15.6". I can only imagine that the same resolution on the much smaller 8.1" screen would look even better.

I would have to agree with you on the 32GB issue though. I can't see there being enough space left over after the Win8 install to really be useful. We are talking about a full Win8 computer after all. But then, with it only being $50 to upgrade to the 64GB model, I think I'd do that.


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation














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