Slashdot Mirror


Dell Reveals Specs For the Looking Glass Tablet

adeelarshad82 writes "Dell hasn't officially unveiled its Looking Glass tablet, but it's on record at the FCC. The spec sheets reveal a device with a 7-inch screen, 3G and Wi-Fi connectivity, and an SD card slot. The Looking Glass will likely be announced at next week's Consumer Electronics Show (CES), which is sure to have no shortage of new tablets. Dell filed the documents for device approval by the FCC on December 17. The Looking Glass is expected to be one of the first devices to pack an Nvidia Tegra 2 processor, a powerful chip for mobile devices that can support both typical functions (like e-mail and Web browsing) as well as advanced graphics — all while preserving battery life."

174 comments

  1. ergh by nomadic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why are all these ipad competitors doing 7 inch screens?

    1. Re:ergh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The 10" screen makes it difficult for them to hit a competitive price point with the iPad.

    2. Re:ergh by del_diablo · · Score: 0

      Stupidity. That is why.

    3. Re:ergh by PatPending · · Score: 1

      Dunno for certain. But the Amazon Kindle 3 has a 6.1" diagonal screen--and the Kindle 3 will fit in the rear pocket of (some) pants (including the pair I have on now--I just tried it to confirm it). So maybe it has to do with something like this.

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    4. Re:ergh by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why are all these ipad competitors doing 7 inch screens?

      You can't easily hold an iPod with one hand for any length of time. Have you seen the Galaxy Tab TV commercial? They make a point of showing the tablet being held one-handed.

      For some of us, the iPad is too big. I'm just waiting for a true tablet version of Android. I'd get a 7" iPad, but Jobs has already said that isn't happening.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:ergh by Joehonkie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, because people who want a different product from the one you want are obviously not geniuses like you. 10" is not what I want in a tablet at all.

    6. Re:ergh by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      You can't easily hold an iPod with one hand for any length of time.

      Argh - s/iPod/iPad/

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    7. Re:ergh by HRbnjR · · Score: 1

      10" minimum - to comfortably read a page of text in landscape without zooming. I bought an iPad to tide me over until I can get a decent Android tablet (for reading websites from the sofa), and from my experience I wouldn't go smaller or lower resolution than that - I already have to squint on a lot of sites. If they can make a 4" screen for the Samsung Galaxy at 800x480, I don't think 1920x1080 on a 10" or 11" tablet is that unreasonable (I'm willing to pay accordingly).

    8. Re:ergh by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      You can't easily hold an iPod with one hand for any length of time.

      That's why God made the Kindle.

      For all other uses you don't need to hold it one hand for any length of time.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    9. Re:ergh by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Because the iPad is too big.

      If I wanted to lug around a device that big I'd get a netbook, which has USB and an SD card reader.

      The advantage of the tablet form factor is portability, and the ipad is a little too big and heavy to be a significant win in this area.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    10. Re:ergh by jimicus · · Score: 1

      How do you think they get the price down?

    11. Re:ergh by dhovis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because, believe it or not, Apple came in at a price point that nobody could match without Apple's sales volume. The only way to under cut Apple's price is to reduce the screen size. By half, it turns out (7^2 = 49, 10^2 =100).

      --

      --
      The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.

    12. Re:ergh by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      For all other uses you don't need to hold it one hand for any length of time.

      Pr0n?

    13. Re:ergh by 0123456 · · Score: 0

      Because, believe it or not, Apple came in at a price point that nobody could match without Apple's sales volume.

      So Apple sell a netbook with no keyboard and an ARM CPU for twice the price of a netbook and no-one can compete with it on price?

      Perhaps you're right, but that seems... odd.

    14. Re:ergh by PatPending · · Score: 1

      That's why God made the Kindle.

      Bezos? Oh, wait, that God. (Sorry.)

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    15. Re:ergh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I use mine similarly to my five friends which also have them, and that's for reading websites while around the house - living room sofa, in bed, etc. I don't care what you say, you can't comfortably curl up in a bed with a netbook on Sunday morning - the keyboard gets in the way, and it needs a touchscreen - screw trackpads! Everyone uses their smartphones for what you are talking about.

    16. Re:ergh by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think you're right. IMHO, the iPad display needs to be higher resolution. And if they ever made a 12" or even better, a 14" version, I'd be all over it -- magazines at actual magazine size, and with "retina" resolution, pretty darn comparable to magazine look. And much improved newspaper layout as well and better web site browsing (still a tad too much zoom & pan).

      About the only other thing I'd also do would be more CPU -- I find some web sites with heavy javascript make typing and interaction laggy. OK, one more thing -- how about 128 or 256MB flash?

      Overall, though, I really like my iPad.

    17. Re:ergh by PatPending · · Score: 1

      7^2 is 5 and 10^2 is 8 where I come from

      :P

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    18. Re:ergh by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > 10" minimum - to comfortably read a page of text in landscape without zooming.

      Demonstrably untrue. I do it all the time with my 55 year old eyes on my 4" Droid X.

      A 7" tablet, that actually fits in a coat pocket, would be just about perfect. 10" (9.7 actually) is too big. You might as well carry a notebook.

      Which just goes to prove, there's more then one market out there for tablets.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    19. Re:ergh by choko · · Score: 1

      Their market research probably shows that people prefer a smaller screen on tablet, or that a smaller screen for less money is preferable to a larger screen for more money. Do you really think they enter in to a project of this scale without doing a little research first?

    20. Re:ergh by del_diablo · · Score: 2

      It is not about it being 7 inches, it is about it ALL OF THEM being 7 inches.
      If there was some variation(the galaxytab is 4 inches? it is variation), it would be interisting, but everything in 7 inches.
      But, it is not the screensize the tablets will fail on.
      My guess is that they will all fail on some of these:
      *Bad and/or slow interface
      *Fragmentation causing GUI programming to be bad
      *The cheap variants will ruin the marked
      Tablets has been around since pre-century, and it did never catch on until the iPad. Now that everything ships with superslow Android using a slow java interprenter, the package problem has been solved, but they will most likely still stumble and CRASH on the user interface.
      Then lets ask a question instead: Which tablets will we consider to be "good" after the year 2011 is over? Galaxy tab and succesor looks good, iPad created the segment, and I assume there will at the top be 1 additional good tablet to compete in the marked.

    21. Re:ergh by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Are you saying you can actually read an 8.5" by 11" PDF originally intended for printing on a 4" screen without panning and zooming? That's what I use mine for, I have to read screenplays and the Kindle just never cut it. Works great for manuals too; I just can't see how you could get a page of that legible on a small screen.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    22. Re:ergh by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      Cheapness and stupidity.

      7 inch screens are cheaper and less casing is cheaper too. Not to mention less batteries. The iPad is full of big batteries to get that long run time. Competitors will just skimp on the battery life and materials the wonder why their product isn't as well received.

    23. Re:ergh by GreatDrok · · Score: 1

      "10" minimum - to comfortably read a page of text in landscape without zooming."

      Reading isn't the issue - as others have pointed out you can read pages on a much smaller screen if the resolution is high enough and also if the device renders the page accordingly. However, try actually using a web site using a small touch screen and it is a different matter. On my iPad I can just get along with most pages when I use it in landscape mode but if it was any smaller I often wouldn't be able to hit links accurately without first having to zoom the page in. I sometimes have to do this on the iPad but it is thankfully rare but if the screen was smaller it would be much to frequent.

      --
      "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
    24. Re:ergh by PatPending · · Score: 1

      (Continuing my OP)

      Maybe the designers wanted it to also fit in a purse, jacket pocket, motorcycle tank bag, automotive glove box, etc.

      Also with increasing screen size comes added cost, weight, thickness, and greater area susceptible to damage (e.g., cracking due to a drop, etc.)

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    25. Re:ergh by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      You can't easily hold an iPod with one hand for any length of time.

      That's why God made the Kindle.

      For all other uses you don't need to hold it one hand for any length of time.

      I love my Kindle; but speaking as someone who's used iSSH on an iPod Touch and have also used it on an iPad I must disagree with you. For commuting, the iPad's keyboard and screen size really don't work well unless you're using it relatively passively. A smaller screen still allows thumb typing while holding the tablet up.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    26. Re:ergh by Applekid · · Score: 1

      It is not about it being 7 inches, it is about it ALL OF THEM being 7 inches.

      There are only so many display sizes that can deliver the required display resolution, pixel-change responsiveness, and touch sensitivity at sufficient quantity at a decent price. There are also pretty big implications when you single-source parts, especially live-or-die parts like the display. People are willing to go on waiting lists for the latest Apple product, not necessarily Dell.

      When you consider the deal-breakers you mentioned, shoppers are going to be looking at those details and no one is going to ignore those pain points and buy based solely on screen size.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    27. Re:ergh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your exact same argument applies just as well to 7" as it does 10" - nobody really wants to carry 7" with them everywhere either. A 4" device that fits in your pants pocket is the sweet spot for a portable device. Once you are past that, you might as well get a 10" or 12" or a notebook.

    28. Re:ergh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Specifically, why is nobody doing an 8.5x11" screen? I'd buy three, pretty much regardless of quality or price, just as an experiment to try to get my boss and the other two luddites here off the 'print every single one of my emails' crack. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that my boss in particular would use anything smaller. A little extra room to add a few buttons would be nice too, but the 8.5x11 display is essential to at least a subset of business users.

      There was one a while back that had an 8.5x11 form factor but the screen was significantly smaller IIRC..

    29. Re:ergh by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      A 7" tablet, that actually fits in a coat pocket, would be just about perfect. 10" (9.7 actually) is too big.

      Do you shrink your fingers?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    30. Re:ergh by peragrin · · Score: 1

      exceot I cant put my own software, or files onto a kindle without going through amazon's services. If amazon finds I have something they deem illegal they will remotely delete it for me.

      If BN would open the nook color into a full tablet that is what i am looking for. Wifi only(I don't need yet another data plan, Kindle's sprint service in my area sucks) 7" android tablet, with some configuration.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    31. Re:ergh by dhovis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because, believe it or not, Apple came in at a price point that nobody could match without Apple's sales volume.

      So Apple sell a netbook with no keyboard and an ARM CPU for twice the price of a netbook and no-one can compete with it on price?

      Perhaps you're right, but that seems... odd.

      Calling the iPad a netbook with no keyboard it a bit of a stretch. Even if you don't like Apple, you'd be hard pressed to find a netbook with an IPS LCD display, for example. Also, I don't know of any netbooks that have a touchscreen, which more than makes up (costwise) for the lack of a keyboard.

      Anyway, If anyone could make a 10" iPad competitor at $500 or less, they'd have done so by now. That everyone who is trying is coming in at half the screen size should be confirmation. There were stories when the iPad was announced that it was going to $800-$1000. Everyone was preparing tablet competitors to go up against that price range. When the iPad came out at $500, it submarined everyone else's plans. It killed the HP Slate, for instance.

      --

      --
      The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.

    32. Re:ergh by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So Apple sell a netbook with no keyboard and an ARM CPU for twice the price of a netbook and no-one can compete with it on price?

      It has a keyboard. It's on-screen. And no other netbook comes close. There's no Microsoft OS designed for touch input (there are some that "support" it, but not designed for it). Same with Linux, but there are some netbook versions out there getting better. So, just from the point of a netbook with a usable touchscreen, there is nothing out there in that price range.

      But no, rather than evaluating it based on the market's opinion, you imply that your opinion on what's competitive is correct and evaluate it that way. If you were right, then the netbooks that come with a big, heavy keyboard, hinges, greater weight, greater size and all that which are cheaper would have been flying off the shelves before the iPad got here. They didn't, so you are demonstrably wrong. They can't be competitors if people still aren't buying them at half the price. But rather than actually thinking about it, you assert it to be some fanboyism or irrationality and that you are right and every other person on the entire planet is wrong.

    33. Re:ergh by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So just do it yourself. Lots of instructions online.

    34. Re:ergh by peragrin · · Score: 1

      twice the price of a netbook? where? Most netbooks are $300-400 the ipad is only about 25% greater.

      and yes no one can compete on price. Acer stated right after the ipad pricing was annouced that they were expecting it to be sold around $899-$999. When Apple said $499 the entire industry cried.

      That is why it has been a year and there is literally only one decent competitor on the market(Galaxy tab), and that is selling for more than the ipad even though it is smaller.(wifi only version is expected to be at $599.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    35. Re:ergh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, I want a 10" display.

    36. Re:ergh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean they don't exist. http://www.amazon.com/Asus-T91MT-PU17-BK-8-9-Inch-Netbook-Computer/dp/B002UAR8SK

    37. Re:ergh by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      My guess is price, time to market, and uniqueness. 10" multi-touch screens are relatively new and maybe hard to manufacture in large quantities at the moment and maybe costly. Remember Apple probably worked on the iPad for a long time so they had time to line up their suppliers. Also if there was a critical component that is in short supply, Apple (like any manufacturer) would have locked up the supply.

      For example, when Apple first came out with the iPod, one of the distinguishing features of it was that it was the size of deck of cards while holding about 5 GB. At the time other large MP3 players used notebook drives and were the size of a portable CD player. This was made possible by tiny HDs that Toshiba had just invented. Apple subsequently locked up the supply of tiny drives by buying out all of Toshiba's new product. Apple might have done the same with the 10" screens.

      Competitors seeing a limited supply might have opted to work on a 7" version first in order to get out a product sooner rather than later.

      Lastly, everyone probably knows about the 10" iPad by now. A smaller version is more distinctive to the consumer.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    38. Re:ergh by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 1

      Why are all these ipad competitors doing 7 inch screens?

      They use the cheap mass produced screens already used in portable DVD players. This is why many of those 7 inch tablets are also 16:9 and not 4:3, which makes more sense.

    39. Re:ergh by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Why are all these ipad competitors doing 7 inch screens?

      Not all the non-iPad tablets that have been announced, had specs leaked, or, for that matter, are already on the market have 7" screens.

      Some of them have 10" screens, like the iPad. Some of them have 7" screens. Some of them have bigger screens. Some of them have smaller screens.

      And the reason for the variety of screen sizes is because not every manufacturer thinks that 10 inches is the One True Size for tablets.

    40. Re:ergh by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      ill be able to fit a 7 inch tab in my suit jacket pocket, ipad, no chance...

    41. Re:ergh by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Have not specifically tried it with a PDF, but have used it to read Word docs with "docs to go", and I'm using it to read Slashdot unzoomed right now.

      I'm not saying it's ideal, but it is possible. I prefer not to use zoom because I don't like panning back and forth while I'm reading.

      The 7" Galaxy tab is 1024X600, and reading a document in landscape (using vertical scrolling) is fine. Dunno enough yet about the Dell tablet to know how it'll perform, but 7" is demonstrably a workable form factor.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    42. Re:ergh by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      10" minimum - to comfortably read a page of text in landscape without zooming.

      Assuming the page of text is designed to read on a letter/A4 page, a ~14" display is necessary to display the full page at the size it is designed to be viewed. A 10" screen is about right for typical trade paperback size pages.

      How much reduction below design size is tolerable will vary from person to person, but many documents are already at the limit of readability at their design size, so any smaller device screen will require zooming and panning for a substantial fraction of users, even if it had the clarity of print.

    43. Re:ergh by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      Can you type on an iPhone?

    44. Re:ergh by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      The fallacy of market research.

      Need I remind people that market research also said that New Coke and Crystal Pepsi were going to be huge?

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    45. Re:ergh by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      There is some truth to that. Since I got the Droid X I carry my laptop much less frequently, and really had no use for the company issued iPad.

      I can even log onto my workstation from the phone through Logmein Ignition (home) or Citrix for Android (work), although it's a little painful on the 4" 854X480 display. The Galaxy tab, for instance, has a resolution of 1024X600 on a 7" screen, *and* it still fits in a coat pocket, which the iPad does not do. Ten by Six on seven inches would be pretty much the perfect compromise of usability and portability.

      Moreover, an Android tablet would potentially have something that my Droid X currently does not have, and the iPad will never have -- USB host capability. If I could just read images from Compact Flash into the device, I really could leave my laptop home, as Photoshop Express for Android gives me enough functionality to edit and upload photos from the field.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    46. Re:ergh by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      if i buy an iPad its for portability, not to use around the house... i have a tv/computer with wireless keyboard in the living room, laptop lying around, iPhone for personal, blackberry for worl... with internet for checking trivial stuff, anything more than trivial i feel i need to get out of bed anyway...iPad just to have around the home? seems like a waste

    47. Re:ergh by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      What apple have is a beautifully accessible user interface... hell, even my parents are considering switching to iPhone after almost 15 years with nokia after seeing my phone.

      I love the interface, i hate everything else...

    48. Re:ergh by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      Damn, wish that was available outside the US...

    49. Re:ergh by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      iPad is fantastic with its battery life agreed, why cant the bastards do the same with the iphone? "slimmest smarphone" - bah, let me get by a day without needing a charger at home and at the office...

    50. Re:ergh by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Because they know that, at the best, they will be half as nice as the iPad and therefore must come in under $250.

    51. Re:ergh by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      My daughter actually owns the T101, a slightly higher end version of that. She got it for Christmas.

      The only downside to the device is that it runs Windows 7, which has lousy, I repeat, lousy touch support. I'm thinking of trying Ubuntu on it when their tablet-enabled version becomes available. If only it ran Android...

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    52. Re:ergh by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      So Apple sell a netbook with no keyboard and an ARM CPU for twice the price of a netbook and no-one can compete with it on price?

      No one has anything like the way of driving revenue after the sale of the device itself like Apple has with the App Store that was established for the iPhone before the iPad came out. The App Store lets Apple sell iPads at a lower price than it would otherwise be able to.

    53. Re:ergh by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I thought you could add your own PDF files to the kindle...

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    54. Re:ergh by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I haven't used terminals at all from the iPad but I find typing a lot easier on the iPad than the touch/iPhone - when it's sitting on a lap. I agree upright typing on an iPad is a lot harder.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    55. Re:ergh by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      It's not just typing. It's the actual use of apps on the machine.

      And yes, btw, I can type with half my screen obscured by OSK. I use both an iPad and an iPhone and I can tell you without any reservation that screen real estate on a touch-based device is valued differently from one using a mouse pointer. That is why Safari behaves differently on both devices.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    56. Re:ergh by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Walking around and engaging in input activities with the tablet involves holding it in your off hand for long periods of time while jabbing and stroking at it with your primary.

      The first tablet computer anyone took seriously was the GRiDPad 1910, a PC-class clone with a 640x400 backlit monochrome display. At least one auto manufacturer used them for inventory control, as did at least some organizations within the US armed forces (with a custom magnesium case.) I own one of the plastic ones and the thing is heavy. I imagine the military could force people to use them though, and they have physical fitness standards.

      I've never held an iPad so I wouldn't know if it's too heavy or not, but weight is definitely a drawback when there's too much of it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    57. Re:ergh by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      slow-clock atom with GMA500 == ugh

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    58. Re:ergh by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Because, believe it or not, Apple came in at a price point that nobody could match without Apple's sales volume. The only way to under cut Apple's price is to reduce the screen size. By half, it turns out (7^2 = 49, 10^2 =100).

      The ViewSonic G is the same price as an iPad wifi, with a 10.1" (1024x600) screen compared to the iPad's 9.7" (1024x768) screen. It is not alone among 10" Android tablets in being price competitive with the iPad.

      Its certainly hard for other manufacturers to price compete with Apple given Apple's beating everyone to the market and being able to leverage the App Store advantage, and superior consumer brand image. But its equally certainly not the case that 7" tablets are simply a matter of being the only thing other manufacturers can do to price compete, though it is something they can do to differentiate themselves and target a market segment and interest that Apple isn't already hitting.

      Just like the 11.6"-12.1" 1366x768 tablets are, on the other end. (These tend to be more expensive than the iPad, but then that shouldn't be surprising.)

    59. Re:ergh by basotl · · Score: 2

      Ubuntu 10.10 has touch support. Much of the latest netbook edition seems like it would do well on a tablet.

      --
      HTC EVO 4G LTE w/ CM 10.2 | NookColor w/ CM 10.2 | Samsung Epic 4G w/ CM 10.1
    60. Re:ergh by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      No one has anything like the way of driving revenue after the sale of the device itself like Apple has with the App Store that was established for the iPhone before the iPad came out.

      Interestingly, the App Store was established for the iPad. That's how Apple was able to pull it out of thin air, seemingly overnight, when people rejected their initial web-apps-only strategy and started jailbreaking their iPhones. The App Store was already in the works, but they had no intention of supporting the iPhone with it.

    61. Re:ergh by drcheap · · Score: 2

      Because, believe it or not, Apple came in at a price point that nobody could match without Apple's sales volume. The only way to under cut Apple's price is to reduce the screen size. By half, it turns out (7^2 = 49, 10^2 =100).

      What do 49 & 100 have to do with anything? I think your understanding of screen size specs is failing.
      I'll help out:

      An iPad has a 9.7" 4:3 ratio screen, so that's 7.75" x 5.83" = 45.19 in^2

      A Galaxy Tab is a 7" 16:9.4 ratio screen (yeah, not 16:9 or 16:10, go figure), so that's 6.04" x 3.54" = 21.39 in^2

      So actually it's 21.39 / 45.19 * 100 = ~47.33% of the physical size, but as for pixel count it's 614400 / 786432 * 100 = 78.125% as many.

    62. Re:ergh by basotl · · Score: 2

      Reading and posting off of my Nook Color (7" tablet) in landscape. Works fine and is legible to me. I like that I can be reading off of a pdf textbook in one hand and write on a chalk/white board with my free hand when teaching a class. At $250 it was a good value for my uses.

      --
      HTC EVO 4G LTE w/ CM 10.2 | NookColor w/ CM 10.2 | Samsung Epic 4G w/ CM 10.1
    63. Re:ergh by vgerclover · · Score: 1

      You can't easily hold an iPod with one hand for any length of time.

      Argh - s/iPod/iPad/

      What's the difference?

    64. Re:ergh by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      What's chalk?

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    65. Re:ergh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At my work just about everyone got an ipad to take notes at meetings with, until they realized how awkward it is to touchtype on it without some specially engineered rig to make it comfortable on your wrist AND at a visible angle. All but a few of them are just using pencils and paper again.

    66. Re:ergh by basotl · · Score: 2

      It's an older inexpensive large display technology with great battery life but a slow redraw rate. In addition all my students say my graphics look like stick figures.

      --
      HTC EVO 4G LTE w/ CM 10.2 | NookColor w/ CM 10.2 | Samsung Epic 4G w/ CM 10.1
    67. Re:ergh by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > I can tell you without any reservation that screen real estate on a touch-based device is valued differently from one using a mouse pointer. That is why Safari behaves differently on both devices.

      Bingo. This is one thing that iOS and later Android got right that was horribly wrong with previous tablet implementations. It's not just a matter of making gestures that emulate keyboard-and-mouse. A good user experience on a touch based device requires an entirely new paradigm.

      Try using Windows on a tablet and see why tablets weren't popular until iOS.

      The same techniques that make 3 -- 4 inch screens useful make 7 inch screens useful. It's not a quantum thing, where 3.6 inch screens have a certain usage, 9.7 inch screens have another usage, with nothing useful in between.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    68. Re:ergh by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Geeze, you've never read a paperback? If you can find someone who has, borrow a few of them and try this experiment: Measure the diagonal size of each one and average the measurements. It's about... say it with me... seven inches.

      Even if I read Rolling Stone, I really don't need to view it in original size.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    69. Re:ergh by arisvega · · Score: 1

      .. magazines at actual magazine size, and with "retina" resolution, pretty darn comparable to magazine look. And much improved newspaper layout ..

      Don't even start comparing it to magazines and newspapers; that thing is unusable under sunlight.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    70. Re:ergh by St.+Alfonzo · · Score: 1

      Yeah you can load files on via USB. But unless you want to read it in a landscape orientation the PDF reader isn't very practical. It can read plain text files just fine.

    71. Re:ergh by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      So what if someone designed a netbook with a flippable multi-touch screen and a similar depth as a macbook air?
      Still too thick for the couch?

    72. Re:ergh by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, you're wrong.

      There are plenty of 10-inch Android tablets, almost all of which are cheaper than the iPad. The Archos 101, for example, is $299 for the 8GB version.

      Whether it was Apple's doing or not, the rumors of the $999 iPad did a lot to make people think that the iPad was "cheap" at $499 and that somehow it was Apple's "sales volume" that allowed them to reach that "revolutionary price".

      Of course all of that is BS. The 16GB iPad has the same ARM CPU and the same flash memory as the 16GB iPod Touch, which runs $275. And the 10" screen doesn't cost anywhere near $225, even if it is IPS. iSuppli estimates that the 16GB iPad costs $219 to make, which is not hard to believe considering that you can get a full netbook for around the same price.

    73. Re:ergh by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      And netbooks are several hundred times the price of a stick of chewing gum, so that is why netbooks are more popular as computers. . . . no, wait, that doesn't make sense does it?

      If you didn't understand dhovis' post then don't comment on it. He's talking about the price of tablets, not netbooks. Your disingenuous comparison is simply an attempt to run from the thought that the iPad has a price point that other manufacturers are finding difficult to meet in their TABLET offerings, which is why they are resorting to small screens to reduce costs.

    74. Re:ergh by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Geeze, you've never read a paperback?

      Yes, I have. Quite a few. Of various kinds.

      If you can find someone who has, borrow a few of them and try this experiment: Measure the diagonal size of each one and average the measurements. It's about... say it with me... seven inches.

      You seem to referring to mass market paperbacks, which are about 7", but aren't what I was talking about. There is a difference between mass market paperbacks and trade paperbacks.

      If you do that for typical trade paperbacks (which is what I specifically call out in GP), which are 6"x9", you'll find that the diagonal measure is 12.7" for the full page, and with fairly typical margin sizes right around 10" for the text. Which is why, in GP, I said: Assuming the page of text is designed to read on a letter/A4 page, a ~14" display is necessary to display the full page at the size it is designed to be viewed. A 10" screen is about right for typical trade paperback size pages. (Though an astute observer will note that I did make the mistake of being inconsistent in using the approximate full page size for the letter/A4 and the typical printed area for trade paperback size.)

      Even if I read Rolling Stone, I really don't need to view it in original size.

      Maybe you don't, so what? As I said in GP: How much reduction below design size is tolerable will vary from person to person, but many documents are already at the limit of readability at their design size, so any smaller device screen will require zooming and panning for a substantial fraction of users, even if it had the clarity of print.

    75. Re:ergh by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I can see I didn't make my point very well. My apologies.

      Although I don't have actual data in front of me, just looking at the rows of books at the local bookstore shows me that the great majority of books published are in 7" format. Clearly the great majority of readers are satisfied with that size.

      This isn't an argument that tablets with screen sizes larger than 7" should fail. The original question I believe was "why are all the ipad competitors doing 7" screens?"

      The short answer is, not all of them are. But to answer the unspoken question, it's because there is clearly a market for tablets of that form factor.

      Parenthetically, to really make the pan and zoom argument work, you have to assume preformatted text (like a PDF file), and this does not apply to content delivered by kindle or the plethora of doc readers, or to the great majority of the internet in general. Even news outlets tend to format in narrow columns, which fit nicely on my Droid X without even having to resort to landscape mode.

      Clearly there are uses for big tablets. I'm not questioning that. I personally don't need one, because everything a tablet can do is already accomplished by my notebook. What I'm saying is that there is clearly a market for tablets in format smaller than 9.7 inches but larger than 3.8 inches. I do understand that Steve Jobs disagrees vehemently with this. Shrug. If he's right, all those products will fail. What I think will actually happen is that the crappy 7" tablets will disappear or be regulated to shrink-wrapped toys at Big Lots, and the well engineered products will remain and be improved upon. We shall see.

      As a side note, I don't personally believe that Jobs is disparaging the midsized tablet market merely because he has chosen not to participate in that space. I choose to believe that he really believes what he said, and is not being disingenuous. But I still think he's wrong.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    76. Re:ergh by froggymana · · Score: 1

      And actually Archos is working on a 10" tablet that will run Android. Only $300 for the 8GB version (once it is released) https://store.archos.com/archos-internet-tablet-p-5005.html

      --
      "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
    77. Re:ergh by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/home/index.htm
      -netbook with a detachable/optional keyboard
      -touchscreen
      -$300 (for screen only)
      -9" screen (not 10, but closer than 7)
      -multi-boots Ubuntu and Android

      Oh, and it's been around for a few years now to boot - what you're looking at is the 2nd version. When it first came out it was the first touchscreen netbook with a detachable keyboard.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  2. Price by FishTankX · · Score: 1

    Because they're probably cheap and don't require the display grunt to drive a larger one. If they can sell for $300 it'll be difficult for the iPad to compete in the 'Entry tablet market'. And it makes it easier for tablets to compete with netbooks.

    1. Re:Price by Anon-Admin · · Score: 2

      $300?? How about $210?? Strange that you can get a 10.2" one for about $200 but Dell is pushing a 7" one.

      I got a 10.2" android 2.1 pad (1ghz, camera, GPS, etc) and love it!

      EBay Rocks .

    2. Re:Price by alen · · Score: 1

      have you missed the iPod line? $79 to $399 with different features at each price point

        i bet apple comes out with a 7" iPad next month for the same price or less. if someone is going to order millions of 7" screens then apple's spies will probably tip them off about it

    3. Re:Price by bflong · · Score: 1

      Resistive Touchscreen, not quite enough RAM. Videos I found show it not rotating automatically, and performance a bit choppy. Slightly outdated Android 2.1.
      So close though.

      --
      Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
    4. Re:Price by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      Odd, it rotates fine for me. All the way around. As to the choppy performance, make sure you are looking at the right one. The last one I had was choppy but this one is not. As to ram That is subjective. I have not had any issues with the ram in it. Ok I can only have 11 items running at once, but it is not an issue for me. The slightly outdated v2.1, well some time cutting edge is better than bleeding edge. It takes time for them to get the upgrades out and android is changing quickly. There are good points and bad to that but 2.1 runs great for me.

    5. Re:Price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The killer there is the RAM -- You really want 512M for a decent Android tablet. I'd also guess that since it doesn't trumpet "multitouch" that it's a resistive touch display, which some people don't like.

  3. Missing feature by Gerald · · Score: 2

    Unless it includes a fully functional "Young Lady's Illustrated Primer" it's destined for failure.

    1. Re:Missing feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's alluding to the Diamond Age...

    2. Re:Missing feature by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Facebook app?

    3. Re:Missing feature by rubicelli · · Score: 1

      I'd mod you up if I could.

    4. Re:Missing feature by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      How about a 'Don't Panic' sticker on top?

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
  4. Don't shake it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although it may have a tilt sensor, don't shake it. If you shake it, it turns into a kitten.

    1. Re:Don't shake it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

  5. iPad vs. everyone else by Toe,+The · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just FYI, a recent business IT survey shows interest in iPads stomping all other tablets: about four fifths of companies planning to buy tablets next quarter plan on buying iPads. And it shows satisfaction with iPads vastly outstripping other companies' offerings. (It's also extremely interesting to note that 38% of IT respondants using iPads say they are using them for laptop replacement.)

    In other relevant iPad news, holiday sales numbers seem to show iPads squashing competitors in the consumer channel.

    1. Re:iPad vs. everyone else by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      What competitors? The only viable competition this moment is the Samsung Galaxy, which has been out, what, weeks?

      Of course businesses that are buying tablets right now are buying iPads, right now. It's the only viable product, right now.

      Let's talk later when we're actually comparing apples to apples (so to speak).

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:iPad vs. everyone else by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's funny because before the iPad came out all Slashdotters could do was point out how the iPad was nothing new and how tablets had been around for ages, etc etc. And now that the iPad has pretty much owned the entire market the excuse is that "there are no viable competitors". Would it kill you people to admit you were wrong about the iPad and it's likely success? This is like the failed Slashdot predictions about the potential success of the iPod and iPhone all over again.

    3. Re:iPad vs. everyone else by nomadic · · Score: 2

      I don't remember seeing all slashdotters saying the ipad would fail COMMERCIALLY, just that it was nothing really special.

    4. Re:iPad vs. everyone else by Toe,+The · · Score: 2

      Well, it's right there in TFA: Dell Streak, HP Slate, RIM Playbook, and others. At least those first two can be purchased now. It's not Apple's fault that the others aren't ready yet. (Well, it is Apple's fault that they created the market and thus got to it first: before iPad, everyone thought tablets were a stupid micro-niche.)

      But more to the point, the survey isn't about what businesses are buying right now (except for the satisfaction index), the referenced question is precisely: "Who is the manufacturer of the Tablets your company is planning on buying?" and references next quarter.

      Here is the relevant paragraph:
      "Despite the flood of new Tablets hitting the market, the Apple iPad remains the overwhelming choice of business buyers going forward - with nearly four-in-five (78%) corporate respondents saying their company plans to purchase Apple iPads."

    5. Re:iPad vs. everyone else by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure who you're talking to. I don't recall saying that the iPad was nothing new. Do you always carry on conversations like this?

      But if you want, I'll say it now. Tablets *have* been around for ages. The iPad as a concept really is nothing new. What made it different was (1) a significant improvement in usability over anything that had come out before, and (2) having an app store easily accessible from the device.

      That does not mean that the iPad will be the only tablet worth buying until the sun grows cold. Guess what: Android's paradigm is at least just as good (having used both, I'd say Android's interface is a significant improvement over iOS) and it *also* has an app store accessible from the device. What Android was not, was first to market.

      Being first to market as a significantly improved, actually usable tablet, naturally the iPad is going to dominate the market, at least at first. But Android can offer things that Apple either can not or will not offer: Flash support. Memory slot. A user replaceable battery. USB peripherals. Competition among suppliers. A choice of form factors other than 9.7 inches and 3.5 inches. Regardless of who ultimately eats who's lunch, those of us who lament these shortcomings will finally have other choices. That's the point really. You can continue to shout to the wall that the iPad is the greatest tablet, but that kinda misses the point.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    6. Re:iPad vs. everyone else by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > It's not Apple's fault that the others aren't ready yet.

      What a bizarre thing to say.

      You know... this isn't a contest. Apple was first to market for this generation of tablets. (The first usable generation, in my opinion.) The question becomes: What other choices will we have? The question is not: Who has the most sales?

      > "Despite the flood of new Tablets hitting the market, the Apple iPad remains the overwhelming choice of business buyers going forward - with nearly four-in-five (78%) corporate respondents saying their company plans to purchase Apple iPads."

      The key word, as you well know, is "hitting", in this context "just starting to become available" or in some cases "will be available real soon now". Comparing current sales to future markets is a bit disingenious.

      And I'll announce this right now, so you don't have to bother: Many, perhaps most of the new tablets will be crap for one reason or another. And that's fine. There will be a few gems, and that will give us more choices than the great jobsian shiny thing.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    7. Re:iPad vs. everyone else by Toe,+The · · Score: 1

      Comparing current sales to future markets is a bit disingenious.

      But it is not a comparison of sales: it is a comparison of what IT buyers say they will buy. These are people who are aware of the other products that are or will be available and are still saying that they will buy iPads. Even though these other products' OSes might be more in-line with their installed technologies.

      Having been an IT buyer myself, there have been many times when I have planned to buy an as-yet-unreleased product over an existing one; often specifically because I expected it would provide a better fit with installed technologies. And other times when I planned on buying an existing product despite forthcoming products, because I saw the existing product as a better offering. I expect that these survey respondents are making similar, informed decisions; and 78% of them say that they are planning on buying their tablets from Apple next quarter.

    8. Re:iPad vs. everyone else by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      ...or they could be fanbois... :-)

      What I'm saying is that it's way too early to tell at this particular time. Let's talk again in six months.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    9. Re:iPad vs. everyone else by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      The question becomes: What other choices will we have? The question is not: Who has the most sales?

      Those are both valid questions. Which is more relevant and important depends what the purpose of asking the question is.

    10. Re:iPad vs. everyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *yawn* at non-contributors who want to bleat on about how something someone else made is better than something that some other person made

    11. Re:iPad vs. everyone else by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      That's funny because before the iPad came out all Slashdotters could do was point out how the iPad was nothing new and how tablets had been around for ages, etc etc. And now that the iPad has pretty much owned the entire market the excuse is that "there are no viable competitors". Would it kill you people to admit you were wrong about the iPad and it's likely success?

      "Slashdot" is not a hivemind. Just because the posts that you notice most currently contradict the posts you remember most from quite a long time ago doesn't mean that any of the people involved have changed positions, or even that the overall opinion on Slashdot has changed.

    12. Re:iPad vs. everyone else by Mbraz · · Score: 1

      Yes, the tablet concept have been around for ages, but all of them (I'm supposing you're talking about the early Microsoft concepts and other mid-90's ones) was created BEFORE THE ADVENT OF WI-FI networks and mobile internet (3G and so on). So of course such a kind of device was pointless and there were no market place for them. The iPad changed everything. And yes, I followed /. discussions at the time of iPad release and the consensus was that the tablet device was still pointless as the other attempts before, so the iPad would fail miserably. Of course, ignoring the new form-factor, the touch-screen technology, the app ecosystem, and the mobile internet availability. In few weeks, 10 million people bought a pointless device to discover a way to use it in a near future. I thing that /.ers have a kind of child-trauma to admit the succeed Apple market strategy, and the boldness they have to break established paradigms (this no-USB cries == no-floppy in the 97' iMac, no-optical devices on MacBook Air, and so on). The iPad was never, in any moment the *first* tablet, but was the first with huge success and Apple was the first company to bring it to the masses. Of course being first in an entire new market gives Apple the advantage to be always ahead of competitors: when all these Android tablets come out, the iPad2 is just around the corner. The problem of being an Apple hater is that the competition doesn't help very much. Yes, The iPod predictions here is the Slashdot's 9/11.

    13. Re:iPad vs. everyone else by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      Yes, in 6 months, and hopefully there will be at least one viable competitor so you don't have to feel like a complete fool with your Apple hating posts?

    14. Re:iPad vs. everyone else by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      They are both valid questions, but it is the first, not the second, that was the topic of this thread.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    15. Re:iPad vs. everyone else by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Well, also, early Microsoft concepts sucked because the Windows paradigm didn't work well on a touch device.

      Still doesn't.

      As someone else already pointed out, the slashdot community is not a hive mind. What you didn't read are all the articles people didn't write because they didn't care one way or the other or because they were waiting to see how things worked out. And I think you're misremembering all the slashdotters who thought this might be interesting, despite the fact that Apple had already tried and failed to play in that space. (Newton.)

      The propagation of wifi is a small factor, but this doesn't explain why windows tablets still suck. (Besides, the iPad's conduit of choice is GSM/Edge, not wifi. As is the Samsung Galaxy tablet.) The real breakthrough, in my opinion, was the interface. Some of us Palm Pilot junkies from the nineties had a suspicion that a touch-only interface could be adapted to a "real" computer, it's just that nobody had been really successful at that very important part, before. After playing with the iphone when it first came out, it became obvious that this sort of interface would scale up just fine.

      So no, I reject your allegation that the entire Slashdot community were proclaiming loudly that the iPad would be a failure. Clearly some were, but that really doesn't mean anything. If you said in slashdot that man landed on the moon in 1969, one out of ten would say, no they didn't.

      My issues at the time were lack of SD and USB slots and lack of a user replaceable battery. These are still issues. No USB is not the same as no floppy. Floppy was a dying technology only used for boot and diagnostics, and when boot from CD became widely available the floppy died and deserved to. The comparison is specious.

      And really, you're coming off as a bit of a fanboi harboring a snit.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    16. Re:iPad vs. everyone else by seebs · · Score: 1

      Heck, I still remember people saying the iPod was doomed to failure. I may even have been one of them. Now I have an iPhone, both the people I live with have iPods, and I have an iPad.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    17. Re:iPad vs. everyone else by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you got the right person? What makes my posts "apple hating"? Please show me an example.

      At home we have a Mac tower, (dual proc 800 Mhz Power series, still runs fine) two Touches (8 gig and 32 gig), a 5th gen Nano and an ancient 3rd gen ipod that remains connected to my car stereo. Soooooo what, are you saying I'm self-hating? Or does merely not feeling that an iPad fits into my workflow counts as "Apple hating"? If you really believe that, it says more about you than it does about me.

      The Galaxy tablet is finally available, but has been only for a few weeks. I'm choosing not to count the plethora of cheapie under $200 tablets (usually running stale versions of Android) that aren't hooked into the Android marketplace. I suspect that Android tablets will take off in the same way Android phones have, but I've been surprised before. We'll see.

      In the meantime, the iPad is still too big and lacks the SD card and USB slots necessary to fit into my workflow. If you like blowing out the candles on a virtual birthday cake, more power to you, it's not worth $529.99 to me.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    18. Re:iPad vs. everyone else by TekPolitik · · Score: 1

      before the iPad came out all Slashdotters could do was point out how the iPad was nothing new.. now... the excuse is that "there are no viable competitors".

      You suggest an inconsistency where there is none. The concept of the tablet computer was nothing new. However, there is no other tablet that currently matches the technical specs of the iPad. If there were a tablet that had even exactly the same specs as the iPad, but was not made by Apple and ran something Linux based, I'd buy it, but there simply is none. The most significant shortcomings of competitors appear to be screen resolution and battery life. I am not aware of any competitive tablet that has the same or better screen resolution or battery life.

      On the other hand, there are a lot of competitors with more powerful devices in other respects.

  6. Re:Kitten by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    : )

    Cheshire Kitten

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  7. OS? by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 1

    Sorry for my ignorance regarding this tablet, but what OS is it planning to come with?

    1. Re:OS? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Sorry for my ignorance regarding this tablet, but what OS is it planning to come with?

      Android 2.1 Eclair OS

    2. Re:OS? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Really? Great. Wake me when the 2.2 update is released. Not interesting until then.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:OS? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      WTF?

      2.3 is already out. Why does DELL keep doing this?

    4. Re:OS? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      My LG phone runs 1.6 and I am perfectly happy with it.

    5. Re:OS? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Why not upgrade?
      1.6 is slow compared to 2.2, plus lots of stuff won't run on it.

    6. Re:OS? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Its fine at the moment. I haven't looked closely so I don't see how I would go about upgrading. Most of the apps I am interested in installing I build myself.

    7. Re:OS? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You find a rom already made or make your own.

  8. Do you even own one? by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    Good luck with that 7" screen. I find the iPad screen just barley large enough for a tablet. With a 7" screen you may as well just have something that can go in a pocket.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Do you even own one? by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or in a bag. A 10" tablet is too big for my tankbag for my motorcycle for instance, but a 7" fits nicely.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Do you even own one? by Joehonkie · · Score: 1

      I don't own any, because there's none that I like, but the 7" ones I have messed haven't disappointed me in screen size. Hell, I'm just going to be reading web pages and replying to e-mail on it. If I was going to do anything more and wanted a 10" I already have a netbook.

    3. Re:Do you even own one? by mcdermd · · Score: 2

      I don't know what kind of a tank bag you use but if it can't fit an iPad sized device, it's the smallest tank bag I've ever seen in my life.

    4. Re:Do you even own one? by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My company issues ipads, and after using one for two weeks I returned mine. It just wasn't a significant win in portability over my notebook, which does more and has SD and USB slots. I don't need to carry around yet another device just 'cause it's cool.

      If the iPad works for you, great, but appreciate that others have different needs. The 7" form factor will fit in a coat pocket, which means I'm more likely to have the device on me. That it's not made by Apple makes it more likely that it may have the I/O ports I need. A double win.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    5. Re:Do you even own one? by gilesjuk · · Score: 1, Funny

      My 42 inch TV won't fit in a small bag, but I wouldn't sacrifice its size just so it is easier to move around.

    6. Re:Do you even own one? by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it would be completely crazy to take portability and size into account for something like a tablet, which, just like your 42" TV is designed to be bolted into the wall and used in one place and one place only. In fact, we should just jump straight to 42" tablets and be done with it.

    7. Re:Do you even own one? by vonsneerderhooten · · Score: 0

      Thanks for reminding me of the reason I stopped reading the comments here.

    8. Re:Do you even own one? by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Which is why so many people choose not to skimp on size and carry their full-size desktop tower and 22" widescreen monitor everywhere they go. Good point.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    9. Re:Do you even own one? by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      portable device against a large screen tv, genius arguement there...

    10. Re:Do you even own one? by seamonkey420 · · Score: 1
      you ever used a 7" vs the 10"? i think its perfect imo after having an iPad i love my Galaxy Tab's size.

      a tool/gadget that i can take with me everywhere is already a superior product.. the fact that it can hold its own performance-wise really is the icing on the cake.

      as for usage, for the major computing i have my macbook air 11" so the 10" iPad in a way is irrelevant in my setup. but again, portability of the 7" screens is a huge seller to me and probably others. just my usual .02

    11. Re:Do you even own one? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

      I've tried them out in stores, but I don't see how a 7" tablet is a tool you can take with you everywhere the way you can a Touch or iPhone or other phone. To me a 7" tablet is just large enough I'd be able to have it in all the same places I can bring an iPad, and then why not have a larger screen?

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    12. Re:Do you even own one? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Thanks for reminding me of the reason I stopped reading the comments here.

      So. How does this work?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re:Do you even own one? by tepples · · Score: 1

      In fact, we should just jump straight to 42" tablets and be done with it.

      Let me guess: you're trying to sell us on a Microsoft Surface.

  9. ZSense by eyenot · · Score: 1

    That's neat, it looks like they're using some kind of inductance interference to register finger proximity to the touch pad, so you don't even necessarily have to touch the screen. They're only using one attenuator/sensor, so it will only serve the purpose of turning the screen/device on when you move your finger near it, but if they were to use several then theoretically you could do away with the "touch" aspect. Forgive me if any of that's olden but it's news to me.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  10. Won't Get Delled Again! by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    Meet the new crap.
    Same as the old crap.

  11. Just tell me by ThePangolino · · Score: 1

    ...this has not anything to do with Looking Glass does it?
    The project seemed to me worth of interest back then.

    --
    My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
  12. vacuous ad copy? by fermion · · Score: 2
    a powerful chip for mobile devices that can support both typical functions (like e-mail and Web browsing) as well as advanced graphics — all while preserving battery life.

    This seems like ad copy meant to promote a technology that may or may not be successful. The mobile devices that have use the chip, the Kin and Zune, are not widely successful. The tablet that has used this chip, the Folio 100, has evidently been pulled from shelves and has required a firmware update to be minimally function. This is surprising as the chip uses the SOC model that all other tablets use. And there does not seem any cost saving for use the chip and Android, as the prices seems the same as an iPad.

    I am looking forward to the tablets, as a $300 tablet will revolutionize the way we interact, but I do not see such devices yet, and this chip does not seem to move the market forward in any meaningful way, other than in the area of meaningless jargon.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:vacuous ad copy? by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      The Kin and the Zune both use Tegra 1 series chips. The Folio 100 had a Tegra 2.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    2. Re:vacuous ad copy? by 3.1415926535 · · Score: 1

      The Kin and Zune HD use the original Tegra. All these new devices coming out use Tegra 2.

  13. With Apologies to Lewis Carroll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He got so frustrated with his new tablet that he threw the Looking Glass out the window.

  14. Screen too small by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

    It appears most people want a bigger screen - the size of the iPad for example. The iPad's screen isn't big enough for me! I want a screen that is the size and shape of either A4 or 8.5x11. A true paper replacement. And it would need to be fairly high resolution, and speedy.

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    1. Re:Screen too small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you like a pony as well? Maybe some ice cream or a dolly?

    2. Re:Screen too small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you happened to be looking for a more portable size at lower cost (and more openness than Apple allows) as I have, you might have been tracking the 7-inch Android tablets market (as I have), and seen all the buzz about them on various fora such as slatedroid.com and androidtablets.net (or engadget for that matter). Any time new ones are announced, early adopters are all over them, and there is a lot of discussion about their findings. The demand is there, even if you are not part of it.

      Actually, I have found even 7 inchers too big for my portability preferences (for the most part), and have found the 4.8-inch screen of my Archos 5 Android Internet tablet to be be ideal for me. It fits in a "normal" shirt pocket (I would like to see what the pants look like of the poster above who claims to put a 10-inch iPad in his back pocket ... on second thought, maybe I would not like to see that), and is light and thin enough to not make it very obvious at all - especially when I put it in a DayPlanner cover to make it even more inconspicuous. If I need to do something on a bigger screen and/or need more processing power, then my 8.9-inch convertible tablet Fujitsu P1610 is far more capable (running Linux most of the time, Windows a tiny bit) than either Android or IOS at only a little over 2 pounds as the weight penalty.

      Also, after 2 Android phones, I have found that I detest capacitive touch screens as compared to the control I have with a stylus or fingernail on the resistive screens I have been using the last 5-6 years on Palm and WinCE PDA's/Smartphones.

      If iPad and Apple float your boat, good for you, but do not project your preferences for the rest of us. To each their own.

      RO

    3. Re:Screen too small by patjhal · · Score: 1

      I figured part of the reason for the 10" widescreen was to be pretty close to 8.5x11 erring on the size of smaller. That is one of the things I like about that size. That and that it allowed touch typing (albeit not the most comfortably with it being a bit squashed and no give to the virtual keys)

    4. Re:Screen too small by drcheap · · Score: 1

      I figured part of the reason for the 10" widescreen was to be pretty close to 8.5x11 erring on the size of smaller.

      Have you measured an 8.5x11 paper lately? Well it's almost 14" diagonally.

      To get a full sheet of 8.5x11 on a widescreen (read: 16:9), you'd need to go all the way up to a 17.3" panel, a far cry from your 10" idea there.

      A better, almost perfect, fit would be a 14.2" 4:3 ratio panel (8.53x11.35), but alas the days of mass produced 4:3 LCD panel have all but left us thanks to the HTDV & movie industries.

    5. Re:Screen too small by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      I figured part of the reason for the 10" widescreen was to be pretty close to 8.5x11 erring on the size of smaller.

      Even assuming 1" margins all around (so you have 7.5"x10"), a letter-size device would be 12.5" diagonal, which is significantly greater than the 9.7" of the iPad. The largest Android tablets, in the 11.6-12.1" range, are close in diagonal measure, but tend to be 16:9-ish widescreens, so they they're a bit narrow and tall for viewing unreduced letter size material, even shaving the margins.

  15. If you have the right pants by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

    A 7" tablet, that actually fits in a coat pocket, would be just about perfect. 10" (9.7 actually) is too big. You might as well carry a notebook.

    I live in a warm climate and never wear a coat. My iPad fits in my back pants pocket just fine. I carry it there all the time. I just have to remember not to sit on it.

    To me, the iPad is the right size because it's big enough to read and slim enough to be portable. A notebook or netbook wouldn't work as well since even the thinnnest is still too thick for me to be willing to carry around in a pocket.

    1. Re:If you have the right pants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My iPad fits in my back pants pocket just fine

      you must be really fat !

    2. Re:If you have the right pants by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      seriously? how the hell do you dress? i work in a professional environment, i cant wear stupidly baggy jeans with huge pockets/cargo pants... 9.7 diagonal screen is just not a possibility...

    3. Re:If you have the right pants by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Maybe he has one pocket that goes all the way across...

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re:If you have the right pants by Servaas · · Score: 1

      iPad size problems? You're not eating enough!

    5. Re:If you have the right pants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're confusing putting it in your pocket with sticking it down the back of your pants. To tell the difference, take a whiff of your iPad, if it smells of cack, you're not using a pocket...

    6. Re:If you have the right pants by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 2

      I'm a lowly IT support tech - the guy who plugs in your monitor. I dress in an issued golf shirt over these cargo pants. The back pockets are very wide - from the side seam on the leg all the way across to the center-line seam at my spine. That means that (back_pocket_width)==(waist_measurement)/4. The back pockets are also deep, running all the way from waist to crotch level.

      Anyone with pants like that who's at least 40 inches in the waist can put an iPad in their back pocket. You could actually be a lot smaller and the iPad would still fit but it would be stressed/broken by trying to conform to the contour of the hip/backside.

    7. Re:If you have the right pants by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

      Yep. But if you're wearing the right pants, you don't have to be terribly fat. See my post replying to wisdom_brewing.

    8. Re:If you have the right pants by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Ok ok ok, but that's not something normal people wear.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    9. Re:If you have the right pants by basotl · · Score: 1

      When wearing my army acu's my cargo pockets just hold my nook color (7" tablet). Your pants seem well beyond average to me. Anything larger would require a laptop case for me. That's not even counting the less storage space in my everyday civilian clothes.

      --
      HTC EVO 4G LTE w/ CM 10.2 | NookColor w/ CM 10.2 | Samsung Epic 4G w/ CM 10.1
  16. Tired of hearing about tablets? by carcomp · · Score: 0

    Does anyone tire of hearing about tablets? I am pretty sure I remember some buzz like this around 'tablet laptops'... The ones that the monitor spins around and you use a pen. Turns out those weren't as wonderful as we thought. Almost everyone used the keyboards after about 5 minutes. Some time goes by, and we get the iPad. Its interesting, but I still don't get the *real* point of it. The device itself isn't particularly useful for business. I've seen them 'forced' into a business and not really work any better than an iPhone for scheduling meetings. The business model was pure creative on top of that, something that Apple clearly caters to with their design cues. Other than being a really fancy calendar and email thing, it was not particularly useful. We didn't pass them around looking at graphs and images, we used the overhead projector hooked to a PC. Not everyone runs around in fancy suits doing business on the go, smiling like stock photo people... not having time for a PC. Most of us use a desktop. Until something can be *that* useful, its just going to be a 'oooh I gotta have that' thing, not unlike a kid wants a particular toy because their friends have it or they see cool advertising. I don't think screen size is an important factor, and I also don't think that available applications are the factor. Theres a million for the iphone, yet I only install maybe 10 on mine. Until someone finds a way to do useful database administration, or web development from one of these devices, I don't see them really finding a good use other than entertainment.

    1. Re:Tired of hearing about tablets? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      The ones that the monitor spins around and you use a pen. Turns out those weren't as wonderful as we thought. Almost everyone used the keyboards after about 5 minutes.

      Yup, because they were running Windows in conjunction with mostly off the shelf apps. This meant the UI was abysmal and not at all suited to the new use models.

      Some time goes by, and we get the iPad. Its interesting, but I still don't get the *real* point of it.

      It's just another form factor of device, one more suited to certain tasks than either smartphones or laptops.

      The device itself isn't particularly useful for business.

      Business is a vague term. Do you mean office work? No, it doesn't fit well into that market.

      Not everyone runs around in fancy suits doing business on the go, smiling like stock photo people... not having time for a PC.

      Of course not... but some people do. Lecturers, doctors and nurses, mechanics, field engineers, walking secretaries and receptionist types, etc.

      Most of us use a desktop.

      In the US and much of Europe I think "most" of us use laptops now.

      I don't think screen size is an important factor, and I also don't think that available applications are the factor.

      Umm... okay. That's great. Enjoy that belief.

      Theres a million for the iphone, yet I only install maybe 10 on mine.

      Are they the same 10 as everyone else and are you representative of the market?

      Until someone finds a way to do useful database administration, or web development from one of these devices, I don't see them really finding a good use other than entertainment.

      Well, then you lack vision. No one wants a tablet for database administration. However, doctors and nurses want them to pull up charts, reference data, light data entry, etc. Lots of other markets do as well. Guess what, you're not a target market. Get over it.

    2. Re:Tired of hearing about tablets? by carcomp · · Score: 1

      I understand I'm not a target for the market, I just wish I was. Maybe I feel like I'm getting old, (at 30).

  17. No Retina-display iPad in the near future(Re:ergh) by WillAdams · · Score: 2

    Crunch the numbers on it --- 326 ppi even on the iPad's 10.4" display is _way_ more display bandwidth than any graphics chipset currently available, let alone feasible for portable use.

    William

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  18. Not all 7 inches by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    It is not about it being 7 inches, it is about it ALL OF THEM being 7 inches.

    If by "THEM" you mean "tablets that aren't the iPad", they aren't all 7 inches. Of those on the market or announced, the range is something like 4-12 inches. 7 in. seems to be the most common, but it is far from the only size.

    There's actually quite a few 11.6" and 12.1", 1366x768 tablets.

  19. Re:No Retina-display iPad in the near future(Re:er by del_diablo · · Score: 2

    If I can get 1920x1080 on a shitty Intel integrated, why can't they just sit down and make something that allows it on a portable device?
    The question is mindboggeling!

  20. Notion ink Adam by patjhal · · Score: 1

    It uses a tegra2, and is 10 inches, and is launching at CES. Just thought I would point that out. Oh and looks kick ass.

    1. Re:Notion ink Adam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would I buy a laptop from some brown guys? I mean, are they cooler than Apple? I don't think so, It should be some other aiPadwannabe tha will rot on stores. Why do brown people try anyway? lol

  21. pocket DJ by manofherb · · Score: 1

    at first glance it looks like an updated Pocket DJ that Dell made around '05

  22. Re:No Retina-display iPad in the near future(Re:er by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Even something like 1600x1200 (which would be ~200ppi for iPad) would be a huge improvement. As it is, pixels are really very noticeable on iPad screen. What more, as it uses the same font rendering as OS X, which does a lot of anti-aliasing, small text looks very blurry around the letters, which is very distracting.

  23. 10" tablets under $500 by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anyway, If anyone could make a 10" iPad competitor at $500 or less, they'd have done so by now.

    There's actually quite a few ~10" Android tablets that have been announced at that price point; all 4 of the Notion Ink Adam 10.1" (1024x600) models which sold out of preorders this month had prices under $550, 3 of the 4 under $500 (all but the Pixel Qi + 3G model).

    The ViewSonic G 10.1" (1024x600) tablet that has been on sale since November seems to be $399.99 at most major online retailers that sell it, slighlty lower at some.

    That everyone who is trying is coming in at half the screen size should be confirmation.

    Actually, several competing models that have been announced (including a few already available) are in the 11.6" to 12.1" range (typically 16:9, 1366x768), and quite a few are 10.1" (1024x600) devices.

  24. Poor Viewsonic...already in stores already tegra 2 by grapeape · · Score: 1

    Geez where is the love for the G Tab? Viewsonic has had a Tegra 2 tablet with a dual arm processor on the shelves for months. Sure the default interface is crap...but its nearly the exact specs hardware wise as the "announced" tablets and a standard andoid 2.2 install is pretty simple on the device. The really funny part is the several of the "announced" tablets are actually rebadged viewsonic.

  25. Re:iToy vs. everyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree, there really isn't a market for a poor man's tablet with android or webos or windows 7. That's because poor people need to do work to get by, and don't see the need for a rich man's toy that is actually less functional than a real computer in just about every possible way but still costs just as much.

  26. Re:No Retina-display iPad in the near future(Re:er by WillAdams · · Score: 2

    You could have that, if you're willing to accept the tradeoff in battery life / performance.

    A Retina-display-like 326 ppi would require 2529 x 1897 pixels for an iPad's 10.4" display --- 13.7MB for display alone (up from 2.25MB for 1024 x 768) --- unfortunately, that's not happening in the near future.

    William

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  27. Re:No Retina-display iPad in the near future(Re:er by dara · · Score: 1

    300+ DPI screens may be tough to scale past 7 inch screens, but there are two sizes that I hope manufacturers don't give up on:

    1280x720 at 4.5" (326 DPI)
    1920x1080 at 7" (315 DPI)

    I still think 4.5" is not too big for a phone, though for some reason it seems everyone stops at 4.3" except for the Dell Streak at 5".

    I haven't played with tablet devices to know for sure, but I suspect I'd prefer 6.5-7" over Apple's 10" for the ability to use it one handed and to fit in a jacket pocket.

  28. Re:No Retina-display iPad in the near future(Re:er by WillAdams · · Score: 1

    ~7" is the size of the early Newton MessagePads and many other PDAs (also a fair number contemporary ebook readers).

    It's a useful size and one which I've found worth carrying around since having shirts tailor-made to have pockets to accommodate my Newton --- even now I frequently carry my Sony PRS-600 in a shirt pocket.

    William

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.