Dell Windows 8 Tablet Leaks

[blibba]

I'm sick to death of these tablets and laptops with that sh*t tier screen resolution.

 

[slybunda]

agreed, the screen res should be 1680x1050 minimum. 1920x1080 prefered, makes it much easier to read small text.

atom cpu is good enough, its faster than cortex a9 so thats the main thing.

 

[Octavean]

In addition to the ASUS Eee Slate EP121 Windows 7 PC tablet, I had a first gen iPad which I sold and bought the new iPad with Retina display at 2048-by-1536. I also have a 16GB and 32GB HP Touchpad one of which is running CM9 Android.

While there is a difference in display resolution it's not something that bothers me or something I notice most of the time.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

...since when was 1366x768 on a 10.1" display bad? That's 103,870 pixels per inch. 1920x1080 on your typical 23" screen is 90,157 pixels per inch.

If you can't read small text, turn the DPI up. It's running Windows 8--it'll surely have that option just like Windows dating back to at least 95 had.

Not surprising. Windows might support ARM, but the adoption will be slow until there is a decent amount of software that supports ARM for Windows.

Since it is AoW, I suspect the issue isn't software, but drivers. Writing Windows drivers for ARM--that's something new.

 

[tacosRcool]

I wonder how much these are gonna run?

 

[Easy Rhino]

just realized this. 2GB memory? Oh yea, it is a Windows OS

 

[Mussels]

...since when was 1366x768 on a 10.1" display bad? That's 103,870 pixels per inch. 1920x1080 on your typical 23" screen is 90,157 pixels per inch.

If you can't read small text, turn the DPI up. It's running Windows 8--it'll surely have that option just like Windows dating back to at least 95 had.



Since it is AoW, I suspect the issue isn't software, but drivers. Writing Windows drivers for ARM--that's something new.

finally, someone said what i was thinking.


if this had some 3D rendering power, then i'd be all over it. i'll skip in a few generations.

 

[blibba]

...since when was 1366x768 on a 10.1" display bad? That's 103,870 pixels per inch. 1920x1080 on your typical 23" screen is 90,157 pixels per inch.

I sit about 2-3 feet from a 23", 2048*1152 monitor. Any closer and I can make out lines between pixels. With tablets and laptops, you sit closer still. Plus there's the sheer lack of on-screen real estate.

And what has this got to do with not being able to read small text? That's an argument against higher resolutions, since Windows deals with DPI increases so poorly (see the Anandtech review of the new Asus ultrabook). If I was to run a laptop or tablet (and this resolution issue on the reasonable priced ones is a big part of why I don't) I'd run a Linux distribution that seemed comfortable at an appropriate DPI.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I've got the perfect screen for you:

No lines!

The lines are a consequence of LCDs. You can make them smaller, but they'll always be there.

 

[blibba]

You can make them smaller

Yes please. While we're at it, higher resolutions tends to mean sharper, clearer images, which can't hurt.

Sitting one foot away, a screen has to be <4" before you can't see any benefit from >720p.

 

[sergionography]

just realized this. 2GB memory? Oh yea, it is a Windows OS

thats what worries me, while atoms are well faster than ARM processors, they will be running a rather heavyweight OS. I wonder if the user experience is going to be even acceptable to start with, because in windows 7 atoms were a complete fail in terms of performance and user satisfaction.
now if atom or brazos were to run on andriod os for example then you have something you can consider "powerful" because it doesnt stress the hardware like windows does

so from a user experience standpoint, you wanna do multitasking on the os without starting to lag, and android probably does the better job there, because in windows memory usage usually is at 1.2gb or so before you even run anything

 

[ManofGod]

I can see it now, someone buys this, it runs slow and so they conclude that windows 8 runs slow and sucks. Of course, the atom and intel integrated is what really sucks.

thats what worries me, while atoms are well faster than ARM processors, they will be running a rather heavyweight OS. I wonder if the user experience is going to be even acceptable to start with, because in windows 7 atoms were a complete fail in terms of performance and user satisfaction.
now if atom or brazos were to run on andriod os for example then you have something you can consider "powerful" because it doesnt stress the hardware like windows does

so from a user experience standpoint, you wanna do multitasking on the os without starting to lag, and android probably does the better job there, because in windows memory usage usually is at 1.2gb or so before you even run anything

Exactly! I have a tablet with a AMD C60 and HD6250 graphics and it runs great. Also, it uses a 32GB SSD which runs quite quick and is upgradeable. The crap atom just needs to die, AMD is so much better at that level.

I sit about 2-3 feet from a 23", 2048*1152 monitor. Any closer and I can make out lines between pixels. With tablets and laptops, you sit closer still. Plus there's the sheer lack of on-screen real estate.

And what has this got to do with not being able to read small text? That's an argument against higher resolutions, since Windows deals with DPI increases so poorly (see the Anandtech review of the new Asus ultrabook). If I was to run a laptop or tablet (and this resolution issue on the reasonable priced ones is a big part of why I don't) I'd run a Linux distribution that seemed comfortable at an appropriate DPI.

Sorry, but my Acer W500 at 1280 x 800 looks fantastic in Windows 8. (The text is nice and sharp to me and it is a 10 inch screen.)

just realized this. 2GB memory? Oh yea, it is a Windows OS

Oh yeah, why would anyone want to use 2GB of ram. Just go back to your 640K and have fun.

Acer W500 Definitely fantastic with windows 8 on it. Also, it comes with a dock that has a keyboard and ethernet port.

 

[sneekypeet]

One post at a time please. There is an edit button at the bottom right of your initial post, use that instead of multiple posts.

 

[Octavean]

Since it is AoW, I suspect the issue isn't software, but drivers. Writing Windows drivers for ARM--that's something new.

The supported hardware for windows on ARM will be far lower then that of the X86 / X64 version. There will likely be many things you simply cannot do with a Windows ARM tablet. So no, I don't suspect drivers will be much of an issue.

 

[sergionography]

The supported hardware for windows on ARM will be far lower then that of the X86 / X64 version. There will likely be many things you simply cannot do with a Windows ARM tablet. So no, I don't suspect drivers will be much of an issue.

well lets get realistic here, tablets were never about having everything you expect from a computer on one device. you see only laptops are almost barely getting to that point were anything u did on a desktop you can now do on a laptop

with tablets however and the hardware we are at now,the engineers would be taking a more "what can we do without" approach that way you end up with a device that ends up doing some things perfect rather than a device that can do everything poorly
that is why tablet os has to be as light as possible, as of now tablets are for web browsing/reading/checking emails and sometimes watching videos and for playing mobile video games
there for it is very important in my opinion to keep 2 seperate operating systems one for mainstream and one for mobile. tho i wonder how win8 will stack up, im very curious
im thinking win8 for tablets and arm will end up more like windows phone 7 which looks alot like the win8 metro style stuff. while win8 for x86 will have the desktop and all the sophisticated file system. if that isnt the case then i doubt win8 will be successful because then it wont be able to compete on price against the well established ios and android because it when it does it wont perform as fast(from a user experience perspective)

 

[blibba]

Sorry, but my Acer W500 at 1280 x 800 looks fantastic in Windows 8. (The text is nice and sharp to me and it is a 10 inch screen.)

Firstly, that something is fantastic does not mean that there is no room for improvement. Secondly, this kinda thing is kinda subjective, so saying that a given resolution is satisfactory for you does not imply that it is therefore good enough for everyone.

Personally I used a 1440*900 screen on my desktop for years. I thought the picture quality was pretty damn good. And for a 1440*900 screen, it was pretty damn good.

Then I bought a higher resolution screen, and I realised what I'd been missing out on all that time. Now I feel the same way when I look at 1080p laptops and the new iPad - it's not that what went before was bad, it's that it's possible to do so much better.

If laptops still all came with C2Ds, they'd still be pretty useful pieces of kit, but you'd be pretty fed up with that state of affairs, wouldn't you?

 

[treehouse]

i might get a windows tablet pc if i can control remotely my main pc with

if you can do that with an apple ipad, then am sure you can with this

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Remote Desktop

 

[Octavean]

Firstly, that something is fantastic does not mean that there is no room for improvement. Secondly, this kinda thing is kinda subjective, so saying that a given resolution is satisfactory for you does not imply that it is therefore good enough for everyone.

Personally I used a 1440*900 screen on my desktop for years. I thought the picture quality was pretty damn good. And for a 1440*900 screen, it was pretty damn good.

Then I bought a higher resolution screen, and I realised what I'd been missing out on all that time. Now I feel the same way when I look at 1080p laptops and the new iPad - it's not that what went before was bad, it's that it's possible to do so much better.

If laptops still all came with C2Ds, they'd still be pretty useful pieces of kit, but you'd be pretty fed up with that state of affairs, wouldn't you?

You're right, it is subjective to a point. Like I said before the 2048-by-1536 resolution of the new iPad was noticeable (side by side) over the 1024-by-768 of the first gen iPad but it wasn't as important or useful as I thought it might be. So it's a small improvement to me.

On the manufacters side though the specs have to go up in order to support the upgrade and thus the cost goes up too.

 

[treehouse]

Like I said before the 2048-by-1536 resolution of the new iPad was noticeable (side by side) over the 1024-by-768 of the first gen iPad but it wasn't as important or useful as I thought it might be

i thought it was really noticeable and that is the sole reason i use my ipad over other devices. the screen.

i have 5 lines better eyesight than 20/20 though

edit: re-read what you wrote, i must say that i find the extremely high resolution highly useful but that is like you say, subjective