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

[Noah98]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

??? why is that important?

I can't understand why people say that if you prefer 4:3, you must be apple brainwashed

Isn't it just personal preference? I like 4:3 more because I hold my ipad 2 in portrait mode most of the time. Web browsing in portrait mode with a 4:3 ratio is better (to me). Also, I never have to pan left and right in landscape mode. If I had a 16:9 screen though I would have to pan up and down more frequently. I've held a Motorolla Xoom and Acer Iconia in portrait mode and they are uncomfortable and awkward (especially the Xoom) due to the aspect ratio and weight distribution. When I browsed the web on my nook color I would've loved a 4:3 aspect ratio like the Pandigital Novel has (too bad it has a crappy resistive, low res screen).

When I read comic books (16:9/16:10 are both good for comic books as well, but still not as comfortable to hold) and magazines on my ipad 2, I always hold it in portrait mode, and love the 4:3 screen. Even reading a book in landscape mode with 2 page view is better to me than 16:9.

As far as games go, they are all programed and formatted for the aspect ratio (there are no black bars or anything) so it doesn't matter. In fact, I could use the portrait mode example here again. Tall and skinny might not work as well for some games, although wider in landscape mode could be an advantage. So, gaming is equivalent.

The one area where 16:9 (or 16:10) wins hands down is video. There is no dispute here. But, it depends on how important video is to the user.

To say that 16:9 is all advantage is short sighted. It depends on the user's preference and the task at hand. For me, reading and browsing in portrait mode is more important (and more comfortable on the ipad 2) than having black bars while playing videos. I'm not sure how Steve Jobs influenced my conclusion

If apple replaced the 4:3 screen with a 16:9 one it wouldn't change my opinion in the least bit. I would still prefer the 4:3. Instead, I would give another look to the HP Web OS tablet (also 4:3) as a replacement.

[Noah98]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Figures... My Eee Pad gets here tomorrow.

That's mean... Just mean.

Luck;
Ken

Yeah, but your Asus has an ips screen. Sounds like a win!

[gastan]

Another vote for 4:3 here.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Noah98

I can't understand why people say that if you prefer 4:3, you must be apple brainwashed

Isn't it just personal preference? I like 4:3 more because I hold my ipad 2 in portrait mode most of the time. Web browsing in portrait mode with a 4:3 ratio is better (to me). Also, I never have to pan left and right in landscape mode. If I had a 16:9 screen though I would have to pan up and down more frequently. I've held a Motorolla Xoom and Acer Iconia in portrait mode and they are uncomfortable and awkward (especially the Xoom) due to the aspect ratio and weight distribution. When I browsed the web on my nook color I would've loved a 4:3 aspect ratio like the Pandigital Novel has (too bad it has a crappy resistive, low res screen).

When I read comic books (16:9/16:10 are both good for comic books as well, but still not as comfortable to hold) and magazines on my ipad 2, I always hold it in portrait mode, and love the 4:3 screen. Even reading a book in landscape mode with 2 page view is better to me than 16:9.

As far as games go, they are all programed and formatted for the aspect ratio (there are no black bars or anything) so it doesn't matter. In fact, I could use the portrait mode example here again. Tall and skinny might not work as well for some games, although wider in landscape mode could be an advantage. So, gaming is equivalent.

The one area where 16:9 (or 16:10) wins hands down is video. There is no dispute here. But, it depends on how important video is to the user.

To say that 16:9 is all advantage is short sighted. It depends on the user's preference and the task at hand. For me, reading and browsing in portrait mode is more important (and more comfortable on the ipad 2) than having black bars while playing videos. I'm not sure how Steve Jobs influenced my conclusion

If apple replaced the 4:3 screen with a 16:9 one it wouldn't change my opinion in the least bit. I would still prefer the 4:3. Instead, I would give another look to the HP Web OS tablet (also 4:3) as a replacement.

I made no comment about Apple at all. What I do say is that you can only optimize a device for one application, and every other application with be suboptimal. The question is what application do you tune your device for? You prefer web access for your tuning. I may prefer video for my tuning. Somebody else may want a 7" screen for more portability. There is no right answer, and lots of room for different choices. (Ebooks are better in portrait 16:10. I just measure a Pbook that was handy. The text block was 6" x3.75" - or a ratio of 1.6, exactly 16:10 portrait.)

After all, why would a web browser tuned device boast a HDMI output?

You see, I like the Thrive (and this is a Thrive thread) precisely because it's video tuned. I want a durable PMP player that has a user replaceable battery and external storage (SD/SDHC/SDXC). I doubt if I'll ever use the web browsing capability. It'll be a travel device, with zipper packs of SD chips for plane trip and relax times at the travel site. I'll keep a netbook for web browsing...

[Noah98]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I made no comment about Apple at all.

I know you didn't; I wasn't referencing your post. And, I think in my post I agreed with you about video. If video is your thing, than the Toshiba is definitely the way to go.

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by Noah98

I can't understand why people say that if you prefer 4:3, you must be apple brainwashed

Isn't it just personal preference? I like 4:3 more because I hold my ipad 2 in portrait mode most of the time. Web browsing in portrait mode with a 4:3 ratio is better (to me). Also, I never have to pan left and right in landscape mode. If I had a 16:9 screen though I would have to pan up and down more frequently. I've held a Motorolla Xoom and Acer Iconia in portrait mode and they are uncomfortable and awkward (especially the Xoom) due to the aspect ratio and weight distribution. When I browsed the web on my nook color I would've loved a 4:3 aspect ratio like the Pandigital Novel has (too bad it has a crappy resistive, low res screen).

Nonsense. If 4:3 was better for web browsing everyone would still be using 4x3 monitors on their computers! 16:9 is just as good for web browsing (probably better, since websites are more likely to be widescreen optimized than 4x3 optimized these days)

The ONLY thing 4x3 is good for IMO is PDFs, since they are not re-flowable. Even photos fit 16:9 better.

16:10 would be the best ratio, actually (was always a better compromise between the two, and you can use controls under 16:9 video) , but that seems to be rapidly disappearing in the market in favor of 16:9 manufacturing.

[Ken Maltby]

Well I have just tried the "Zinio Reader" that comes with the TF and was reading a
copy of "Popular Mechanics" and it looks great. In portrait they add a small "letterbox"
to the page, but it looks fine. The text is small (unless you zoom the page) but readable.
This is a benefit of the 1280x800 resolution. The aspect ratio may be a little off optimum
but it is hard to tell for sure. One cool thing, especially with all the ads, is that the links
in the adds usually work.

I won't be using this for normal ebooks, for that my jetBook Lite is still much more convenient, and easier on the eyes. For magazines though this works very well.
It is a fast way to the internet, faster than my old Eee PC, which I'll pass down to
the kid. It won't run the programs I can run on the netbook which I put XP Home on,
but there are all these "apps" to tryout now.

Luck;
Ken

[Noah98]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

Nonsense. If 4:3 was better for web browsing everyone would still be using 4x3 monitors on their computers!

Sigh

You don't hold your computer monitor in portrait mode do you?

[Noah98]

Maybe I'm not crazy, and we will have an Android device that works well in portrait mode after all!

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/17/p...ould-it-be-th/

[=X=]

Originally Posted by Noah98

Maybe I'm not crazy, and we will have an Android device that works well in portrait mode after all!

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/17/p...ould-it-be-th/

No your not crazy and we've had them for some time

[Noah98]

Originally Posted by =X=

No your not crazy and we've had them for some time

Oh yeah! Considering that I had one for like four months, I probably should have thought of that...

[=X=]

Originally Posted by Noah98

Maybe I'm not crazy, and we will have an Android device that works well in portrait mode after all!

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/17/p...ould-it-be-th/

BTW it appears the name of that tablet is "Motorola Xoom 4G". I wonder if Moto will make the same mistake it made with the Xoom.