Slashdot Mirror


ViewSonic AirPanel v150 Review at Ars Technica

Haxby writes "Ars Technica has a pretty thorough review of the ViewSonic AirPanel (15 inch model). You might recall that this device/design won 'Best of Comdex' in 2002, but as the review clearly shows, it's not really all that great, and it's way overpriced. The biggest problem is video performance: it sucks. Poor resolution and hideous rendering times (partly Microsoft's RDC's fault) make it next to useless. Is more bandwidth the key to making these things more palatable?"

16 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. I think by Pingular · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is more bandwidth the key to making these things more palatable?
    I think better use of the available bandwidth is more important than more bandwidth. You can have all the bandwidth you want, but if it doesn't use it properley, then it'll still be a poor piece of equipment.

    --

    When anger rises, think of the consequences.
    Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
    1. Re:I think by Goyuix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Having actually read the article (last night on my notebook connected through wifi wishing for a tablet to read on instead) - the article mentions that bandwidth did play an important part in the test. While not perfect at 1000Mb, it was substantially better than 11Mb.... that could also be related to a PC with a better rendering backend, but who knows....

      This device isn't meant to stream video (though for almost $1000 it should!). My other complaint is that it at 6lbs and a 14-15" screen, it is too bulky for the intended use. The smaller one is much more appealing to me, but at the price I certainly won't be getting either.

      Why can't they just put Windows Mobile 2003 on it instead, give you full PDA capabilities, and use the terminal services client that is part of the package... I mean come on people!

  2. LCD Quality (yes, an OT rant) by questamor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've only just started looking at LCDs and need to know if anyone else sees them ALL looking like trash? I'm rarely up on new hardware tech, 3D stuff doesn't impress me and the ancient 17" CRT I have has done me well. However looking at several brands of LCDs I'm wondering whether I just see them different to other people, or if they truly only have one advantage, clarity. I've taken a look at the screens on Dell, Acer and Apple laptops, 15 & 17" screens from Dell Samsung and BenQ, and a few Apple Cinema Displays. I can only say I see the BEST of them as under a quarter the quality of even an average CRT. I couldn't see any reason to pay even HALF the price of a CRT for one, let alone MORE. Anyone else see LCDs like this, or are my eyes just plaine fucked?

    1. Re:LCD Quality (yes, an OT rant) by October_30th · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Are you running Linux or Windows? Linux fonts are notoriously bad even with the FreeType kind of configuration.

      Another possibility is that you're trying to run a ridiculous resolution. LCDs are great if you want to have an ultra stable screen. If you want a lot of real screen estate, you should be a CRT.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    2. Re:LCD Quality (yes, an OT rant) by FueledByRamen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've gone through some really nice CRTs and some really nice LCDs, and I think that the LCDs are better overall.

      My two best CRTs right now are a Dell (Sony rebranded) 19" Flat Trinitron, and it's absolutely beautiful (very bright and clear) in 1280x1024x85hz. My other great CRT is a Sony 21" (not sure of the exact model, but it was very expensive), and it looks great in 1600x1200.

      The last two LCDs I've had, though, have clearly outclassed both of them, both in functionality and style. I had (sold to a friend) a Dell Ultrasharp 1900FP LCD. Best desktop monitor I've ever owned, especially when using the DVI connector. (The VGA interpolation didn't look as good as straight DVI, but I rarely used it.) It ran at 1280x1024x70hz, and did a great job for every game I threw at it - Battlefield 1942, Quake 3, JK2, MoH:AA, and a few others. I only got rid of it because I bought a laptop.

      The other LCD is permanently attached to my laptop - a Powerbook G4 17". Its brightness and clarity are far better than that of most CRTs that I've seen (and match or exceed that of both of my higher-end CRTs). I like the 1440x900 resolution, too; it seems to me to be a good resolution for that size of panel, unlike Dell's laptops, many of which try to cram 1600x1200 into a 15" panel (unreadable). DVDs look great on it, along with Quake 3 and MoH:Spearhead.

      --
      Every cloud has a silver lining (except for the mushroom shaped ones, which have a lining of Iridium & Strontium 90)
  3. Optimal Tablet PC by patdabiker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is where tablet pc's should be heading. You get all the power of your desktop, in a thin and light form factor you can carry around anywhere within a decent range. I hope R&D continues on these things. Maybe even build a very basic laptop into it so you can use it to take notes when outside of the range, and get full power and sync all your data automatically when you get back within range.

  4. Killer feature: Detachable Monitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The strength of these Smart Displays is that they can have the capability to be a detachable monitor: when docked, they can act just like a normal DVI display, with full video speed, acceleration, etc etc, but when you want to get up, you just pick it up and it automatically goes into "remote" mode. Bring it back and put it in the dock, and *poof* you're back in normal monitor mode.

    The problem is most manufacturers haven't implemented that capability. I'm pretty sure that Viewsonic hasn't, but others (such as the Philips DesXcape) have.

    Not that I've seen it in action, so who knows how well it actually works.

  5. Crappy Devices are Built Everyday by Valar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is a neat idea and all, but i'd prefer a simple VGA->radio->VGA system over a tablet PC + wifi (which is what this looks like). Then I could use my wireless mouse and keyboard and be set. Back when I had a windows machine, I never needed to remotely administrate it (it was just a gaming machine-- it didn't matter if it crashed while i was out). Of course, then there is VNC if you want a full blown desktop anywhere solution.

  6. To be truely useful by BaumSquad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They need to complete the package. These things were intended to be sort of like removable monitors. At least that was the initial intention. Picture this: Instead of buying a plain Jane 15" LCD panel, you pay $100 more and get the new version airpanel XP yada yada model. Now here's the key. You setup the monitor like any other LCD panel. DVI connected to your computer and all that jazz. You use it as normal, and it sits in a little docking station at your desk, which makes the connection to the DVI connection and power for battery charging... Nature calls! You have to go drop a deuce, but you don't want to stop reading the most recent Slashback. What do you do! Well, since you upgraded to the newfangeled peripheral, you just pull your monitor out of it's docking station, and, ideally, it would automatigically connect over wi-fi just as the current model does to the account you were just logged into. So maybe it blanks out for a few seconds as it transitions to the XP remote desktop mode and the Windows CE control. Or maybe it just switches to the login screen as soon as you unhook it. How cool would that be? You have the best of both worlds, and it doesn't cost all THAT much as you are getting a full monitor that works at full speed as well. Now how HARD could it be to make a hardware bypass for this thing? I swear, make this work, and quickly and easily, and these will actually sell! NOone will pay that kind of cash for a glorified gigantic PDA. The really missed the boat on this one. The original concept was "a monitor you can take with you" but instead they just made a weak-ass remote desktop unit. Get me in that think tank and I'd have set them straight... -BaumSquad

  7. I hope this is a trend by Spytap · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been hoping for something like this for a long time: a tablet that I can take somewhere like out on my porch or to school or wherever, and it mimics or uses my computer at home and all of it's programs. Basically, just a screen with USB ports that can connect (not sync, actually connect) with my home computer to enable me to have a moveable workspace.
    Keyboard, mouse, Screen, and BAM protable workstation that's EXACTLY like the one I'm used to using. I'd be willing to have some sort of trade-off of performance, i.e. for more complicated things such as video editing or Photoshop, it would have the main computer (the desktop) do the work and just send the results when done to the tablet, all I need it for is basically a fancy display that allows remote control over my main computer and a place to plug in a keyboard :)

  8. That was my idea! by centron · · Score: 5, Funny

    I came up with the idea of a portable, wireless terminal that transmitted the KVM signals to and from your desktop PC about ten years ago for an 8th grade science project...

    I got a 'C'.

    --

    XeoMage

  9. Use an iBook with RDC by Danneskjold · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I use an iBook with RDC to my WinXP desktop. I get a good-sized keyboard, very good battery life, and acceptable WiFi performance. Granted, video plays poorly via RDC, but cut-and-paste works betweent RDC (I use RDC in a window) and Mac OS X, so if I have to pull up a video URL, I don't have too many problems.

    The iBook is very reasonably priced for this purpose; at $1100-$1200 to set up, it makes working wirelessly on a desktop a lot more fun (and then you can start thinking about getting rid of your desktop monitor and keyboard, and sticking the CPU in a more unobtrusive place . . . and opening port 3389 on your firewall at home, so you can use your home fixed IP to access the machine via RDC . . . )

  10. Re:agreed by cowmix · · Score: 4, Informative

    I hate to defend MSFT but *please* point out a better protocol than RDC for the same CPU and bandwidth considerations...

    I use RDC, VNC and X all day.. and RDC works as well as the rest.

  11. Re:RDC by RevAaron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What is video like on RDC? From some posts here, it sounds like RDC is very nice and fast- except for with video and perhaps flash animation.

    I've never used RDC for any real work. Although a co-worker at one of my jobs uses it often. When he is working, he is just using his desktop via RDC. He'll listen to MP3s, web browse and do work in dreamweaver with no problems- I thought it looked pretty damn fast. IIRC it's only a 10 Mbps network too, going from where we work on campus (the helpdesk, woot) to his dorm room. A lot faster than TightVNC or X11 is at home for me, even on a 100 Mbps network.

    What do I know about speed- I use a 400 MHz XScale machine as my primary box. I have a linux/win2k file server (can't fit all the MP3s on memory cards!) and occasionally use VNC or X11 to admin/get to some app I can't run on WinCE.

    Can I do RDC/terminal services on Win2k without having to find some copy of Win2k terminal server? I know on XP you cna just turn it on, no? What about on 2k?

    --

    Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  12. Re:agreed by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually in my experience comparing RDC, PCAnywhere, and VNC, RDC blows the others away in terms of the speed and responsiveness it exhibits. It destroys VNC in other areas (copy/paste integration), and even though PCAnywhere has some file transfer capabilities, you can transfer files pretty easily with RDC in two different ways: (1) Copy a file on one end, paste it on the other, or (2) set RDC up to establish mapped drives for your remote computer so that you can copy files back and forth using normal windows networking.

    I only wish there was a good client available for MacOS X, as I would love to switch to mac, but use RDC heavily and need a client with all the features available in the windows xp/2003 version.

    --
    Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  13. Re:agreed by spongman · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Streaming highly compressed (mpeg4) video over wireless is stretching it. The idea that you can stream uncompressed (or poorly compressed, eg lzw/jpeg) video frames over a wireless connection is just foolish. Anyone that expects such a thing to work well over a wireless connection just isn't using their brain. It has little to do with the protocol.

    The only way to do this effectively would be to put hooks in the media player to divert the original compressed stream over the network and allow the decompression to occur on the screen.

    As far as microsoft's implementation of RDP being abysmal, it's pretty much the most efficient of its kind out there. But I guess it's all relative to your expectations, right?