MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

rgeorg · 05-26-2009, 01:55 AM

@maqsudbd,
Chippy and others (ColdSun) have explained quite well why the Q7 is not a netbook replacement. I'm just a bit sad that I already have a 7" netbook and can't justify (yet!) buying one of these new devices. I've ordered a 5" jetBook as I am also a LCD-reading fan (with the backlight turned way low), and it is sufficiently different from my Eee in terms of size and battery to justify the cost to myself. Since I basically use the Eee for reading at home (at night), the Q7 would be for similar use with the same size screen (battery life is a non-issue at home).

Perhaps there can be a comparison between the jetBook and the Q7 screen clarity at some point? I wonder if touch-enabled screens are generally less usable (reflective/glare), or if it is just coincidence that the Sony 700 and the Classmate tablet screens are less than optimal?

05-26-2009, 01:55 AM	#100
rgeorg Guru Posts: 675 Karma: 3314796 Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Europe & USA Device: K3/3G(2x), Glo HD, Amazon Voyage	@maqsudbd, Chippy and others (ColdSun) have explained quite well why the Q7 is not a netbook replacement. I'm just a bit sad that I already have a 7" netbook and can't justify (yet!) buying one of these new devices. I've ordered a 5" jetBook as I am also a LCD-reading fan (with the backlight turned way low), and it is sufficiently different from my Eee in terms of size and battery to justify the cost to myself. Since I basically use the Eee for reading at home (at night), the Q7 would be for similar use with the same size screen (battery life is a non-issue at home). Perhaps there can be a comparison between the jetBook and the Q7 screen clarity at some point? I wonder if touch-enabled screens are generally less usable (reflective/glare), or if it is just coincidence that the Sony 700 and the Classmate tablet screens are less than optimal? Last edited by rgeorg; 05-26-2009 at 02:23 AM.