Toshiba Thrive: Toshiba gets it 10.1" tablet @ $429

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Not 4:3

??? why is that important?

[boswd]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Not 4:3

why would you want 4:3 out of curiosity? I've always wondered about this from the Apple camp.

4:3 maybe good for reading books but for web browsing, multimedia such as movies, games , photo, home video's 16:9 /10 widescreen is a much more desirable screen ratio.

I guess to Apple fans 4:3 is preferred until Steve-O gives the green light to 16:9 then all of a sudden it becomes magical and somehow Apple just does it better and it just works.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by boswd

why would you want 4:3 out of curiosity? I've always wondered about this from the Apple camp.

4:3 maybe good for reading books <snip>

... exactly. Reading.

I'm firmly in the Android camp, but I'm holding out for 4:3 here as well. My primary use for a tablet would be reading pdfs and magazines.

Incidentally, I'm intrigued to know why you feel that 16:9 would be better for web browsing. Or indeed for photos.

Graham

[boswd]

Originally Posted by Graham

... exactly. Reading.

I'm firmly in the Android camp, but I'm holding out for 4:3 here as well. My primary use for a tablet would be reading pdfs and magazines.

Incidentally, I'm intrigued to know why you feel that 16:9 would be better for web browsing. Or indeed for photos.

Graham

web browsing because you can utilize more screen real estate from left to right, less panning and makes text easier to read without have to pinch to zoom as much.

For photo's more and more camera's even in smartphones taking wide angle shots is becoming more prevalant. I would rather see black bars only just my 4:3 shots and then have to see black bars on my wide angle shots.

I would think with most reading is a smaller percantage of usage of a tablet as opposed to all the other multimedia functinality of it. If I'm only going to read less than 10% of the device I would be sacrificing a more enjoyable experience the rest of the 90% of the time.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by boswd

web browsing because you can utilize more screen real estate from left to right, less panning and makes text easier to read without have to pinch to zoom as much.

But tablets are wide enough to see the vast majority of websites without panning, so all you're doing with 16:9 is sacrificing height of the page.

Originally Posted by boswd

For photo's more and more camera's even in smartphones taking wide angle shots is becoming more prevalant. I would rather see black bars only just my 4:3 shots and then have to see black bars on my wide angle shots.

But many (most?) of us don't take wide-angle photos.

Originally Posted by boswd

I would think with most reading is a smaller percantage of usage of a tablet as opposed to all the other multimedia functinality of it. If I'm only going to read less than 10% of the device I would be sacrificing a more enjoyable experience the rest of the 90% of the time.

Exactly. For you 16:9 makes more sense.

For Rock and I it's 4:3.

Graham

[boswd]

Originally Posted by Graham

But tablets are wide enough to see the vast majority of websites without panning, so all you're doing with 16:9 is sacrificing height of the page.



But many (most?) of us don't take wide-angle photos.



Exactly. For you 16:9 makes more sense.

For Rock and I it's 4:3.

Graham

I viewed website side by side in Verizon of the Xoom and iPad 2 you get more screen real estate and more of the web page when browsing in 16:9, I mean most computer monitor's sold nowadays are 16:10 widescreen, there's a reason for that.

Photo's well to each his own I guess, I don't have a $600 + camera, only a $300 one and that shoots in wide angle, in fact you can find many compact cameras' that offer you wide angle shots and even most Smartphones. But how one shoots is there own preferance. But it's not some artsy only style of shooting film.

but you're right 4:3 for you and 16:9 for me. My case is basically you'll find 16:9 wide screen to be more of a desired screen ratio for most of the multimedia content, which is the majority of the use for most.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by boswd

I viewed website side by side in Verizon of the Xoom and iPad 2 you get more screen real estate and more of the web page when browsing in 16:9.

Bear in mind that this is because of the higher resolution of the 16:10 Xoom (1280x800) over the iPad 2 (1024x768) rather than the aspect ratio.

If an Android tablet was released using the same screen width and dpi as the Xoom but in 4:3 it would have a height in landscape of 960 pixels - giving you more screen real estate for web browsing than in 16:10.

Graham

[Greg Anos]

at 1280X800, I don't see the importance for the resolution.

It's certainly not enough to be a deal breaker for all the other design benefits...

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Graham

Bear in mind that this is because of the higher resolution of the 16:10 Xoom (1280x800) over the iPad 2 (1024x768) rather than the aspect ratio.

If an Android tablet was released using the same screen width and dpi as the Xoom but in 4:3 it would have a height in landscape of 960 pixels - giving you more screen real estate for web browsing than in 16:10.

Graham

Of course you'd have more screen real estate - you'd have a bigger than 10.1" screen...

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Of course you'd have more screen real estate - you'd have a bigger than 10.1" screen...

Which is my point precisely.

It's not whether it's 4:3 or 16:9 that's important for web browsing but the actual screen real estate of the particular device.

My gut feeling is that web browsing is the number one use people put their tablets to, and for this it doesn't matter whether the thing is 4:3 or 16:9 as long as it's got enough pixels.

So if watching films is your thing go for widescreen, and if reading is your thing go for 4:3. Except we can't do the latter as yet again the Toshiba Android option has followed the pack. Which is why I think Rock was perfectly justified in posting "Not 4:3".

It would be nice to think that the manufacturers' market research is pointing towards widescreen for multimedia as the majority preference and that at this stage nobody was prepared to go for the minority 'reader' market, if it wasn't for the blindingly obvious fact that the market leader by far has succeeded with 4:3.

Graham

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Graham

It would be nice to think that the manufacturers' market research is pointing towards widescreen for multimedia as the majority preference and that at this stage nobody was prepared to go for the minority 'reader' market, if it wasn't for the blindingly obvious fact that the market leader by far has succeeded with 4:3.

They're Apple, and name alone is the reason why. It had nothing to do with aspect ratio.

[GreenMonkey]

I don't like 4x3 even for reading. Too big. Too bulky. 7" 16:9 / 16:10 is just big enough to stick in a cargo pants pocket or a jacket pocket. Maybe even 8". But 4x3 is too bulky to carry around.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

They're Apple, and name alone is the reason why. It had nothing to do with aspect ratio.

All the more reason for at least one manufacturer to go 4:3. Eating into Apple's share is hard. Staking a place in the Android arena is a must. Differentiating itself from the Android pack seems to have worked for the Asus Transformer, and 4:3 could do the trick for someone else.

Graham

[lost101]

Toshiba’s claiming IPS-like quality on its 1280 x 800-resolution display, but it really doesn’t seem as crisp as the panel on the iPad 2 or the Eee Pad Transformer. That said, it is quite bright and viewing angles seemed strong.

http://thisismynext.com/2011/06/08/t...rive-hands-on/

Only a hands-on Preview; expect deeper comparisons with the Transformer in the full review.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Graham

All the more reason for at least one manufacturer to go 4:3. Eating into Apple's share is hard. Staking a place in the Android arena is a must. Differentiating itself from the Android pack seems to have worked for the Asus Transformer, and 4:3 could do the trick for someone else.

Graham

4:3 is only inportant for PDFs. For any other ebook format, 16:10 is just fine. All the first generation e-ink 6" screen were all 16:10. I didn't hear any complaints other than PDFs.

I think you'll get more market differentiation with SD access than by 4:3.

The problem with any all-in-one device is they are compromises due to conflicting application needs. Small to fit in a pocket, but big to see video. Multitouch to eliminate punching buttons, but lousy ability to type, because there's no keyboard. LCDs for color images, but it eats batteries like candy. And on and on...

You can only optimise for one application, every other application will be sub optimal. You differentiate by what application you want to optimise on. Toshiba is Video optimised. Nothing wrong with that.

Whether that is what the largest part of the marketplace wants is another question. Nobody has made available in the wild a from-the-ground-up video optimised table. (PMP's converted to pseudo tablets, yes, but not from the ground up tablet).

Currently, it's take what's available and live with it. This will be changing with a vengence over the next year or two...