Xoom 100K Sold. Good or bad?

[kennyc]

[kjk]

Well it's obvious the Xoom's display was optimized for HD video at 16:9..not sure why you don't think the Kindle, Nook, Bookeen Cybook Opus, Bookeen Cybook Gen3, Sony PRS300, PRS505, PRS600 & PRS700 series were all optimized for reading at 3:4.

[kennyc]

Yep Obvious.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yep Obvious.

Well, obvious to Motorola:

a brilliant 10.1-inch display optimized for high definition video in true 16:9 widescreen format, Motorola XOOM™ provides a whole new media experience for mobile uses

[kennyc]

With any luck someone will make a tv commercial to explain it to you.

[300com]

The best aspect ratio is 4:3 in portrait.

Just say'n

[grumpy3b]

Originally Posted by 300com

The best aspect ratio is 4:3 in portrait.

Just say'n

I agree but have been expanding to include 16:10 devices as that is actually an OK compromise and I have used a laptop in the same ratio way back when I bought my Dell Inspiron 8500 (horrible laptop btw.) I did not mind the aspect ratio though I much prefer as close to 4:3 as possible.

Hmmmmmm, just looked and my current laptop is also a 16:10 screen. And it's a 17" display and huge compared to the current 16:9 screens I've seen in the wild. Nearly 2x larger in size to my eye, I know it's not but there is a significant difference and I am too tired to run the numbers in my head. I know it measures ~9"x14.5" ~= 16:10.

I guess if it comes down to it 16:10 is the one screen ratio alternative to a 4:3 I do not mind using if it comes down to it.

[madsquabbles]

maybe i'm too practical, but why does aspect ratio affect some people? too many words at one time?

i read on multiple devices with different ratios, 16x10, 16x9, and 4x3 and have no problems with any or any size - 4.3", 10.1", 7", 9.7"...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by madsquabbles

maybe i'm too practical, but why does aspect ratio affect some people? too many words at one time?

i read on multiple devices with different ratios, 16x10, 16x9, and 4x3 and have no problems with any or any size - 4.3", 10.1", 7", 9.7"...

[boswd]

don't know if this artlice has been posted but saw this on BGR this morning, it's about a week old and sort of brings things back to reality.

http://www.bgr.com/2011/04/06/the-mo...ly-not-a-flop/

[grumpy3b]

Originally Posted by madsquabbles

maybe i'm too practical, but why does aspect ratio affect some people? too many words at one time?

i read on multiple devices with different ratios, 16x10, 16x9, and 4x3 and have no problems with any or any size - 4.3", 10.1", 7", 9.7"...

google or search here is free. There have been oodles of threads detailing the reasons why.

[=X=]

Originally Posted by kjk

... Well sure, everything is subjective in the end. But do you doubt for a minute that Motorola and Samsung optimized for HD video by going with 16x9, while the Kindle and Nook optimized for reading by going with 4:3 (or 3:4)? Whereas the color Nook purposely went to 16x9 to differentiate it from being a pure reading device? And Apple focused more on the portrait aspect of browsing/reading as well for the iPad, hence its 4:3 ratio?...

For the love of Christ, can people quit arguing about the stupids things. 16:9 vs 4:3, LCD vs eInk, ePUB vs MOBI, Jean-Luc Pickard vs James T. Kirk.

What kills me is people site their personal experience as a good source for fact. Or reference some obscure post. Really who cares?

And as for anybody claiming that 4:3 is better than 16:9 they need to get their head/eyes examined. How does 4:3 enahcne the readig of re-flowable text... Really? Unless somebody is reading/viewing fixed formats like PDF and movies screen ratio makes no difference.


The only reason why I prefer a 7" 16:9 screen is because it fits in my back pocket, and a 4:3 would not. Else there is no difference, I've enjoyed my 4:3 ratio kindle and SONY just as much as my 16:9 nookCOLOR.

<Rant off>
@kjk, this rant is not directed at you but rather all of the 4:3 vs 16:9 arguments, I just chose your post since it's the most recent.

=X=

[pphilipp]

It's only natural this discussion has taken off into a 16x9 VS 4x3 debate.
People have extreme preferences on this subject. The web is loaded with debates about this subject. There's even a few forums focused on it (The official 16:9 screen protest thread, etc.) Facebook groups have formed around it.
This is nothing new... goes back centuries. German physics professor Georg Christoph Lichtenberg wrote about it back in 1786, and he stated it went back centuries before his time.

Film studios, electronics companies, tv stations, publishing companies, camera manufacturers, and many more have spent tons of money researching... sometimes churning out a product which might have sold better if it had made a couple changes to view-ability.

If you study the aspect ratio of various products, paper as well as electronic or film, you will see a pattern unfold. This is not a mistake from the product's manufacturer.

That said, I will come to the defense of the Xoom...
Even though it is designed as an overall good, effective media device with an emphasis on gaming and video taking preference over book-reading, the wide 16x9 screen does offer one superb e-book advantage... the wide screen makes it great to have two book pages open at once! Side-by-side pages are where the wide ratio really shines! Perhaps Motorola also took this into account in their screen-size decision.

[madsquabbles]

Originally Posted by grumpy3b

google or search here is free. There have been oodles of threads detailing the reasons why.

never had to nor will i ever need to search it as i can read words/books no matter what size the screen is. now font size could be limiting my enjoyability.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by =X=

... Jean-Luc Pickard vs James T. Kirk.
..
=X=

Now them's fightin' words, whatchu got 'ginst Kirk?