Samsung Debuts Thin Galaxy Tab S With Super AMOLED 2560X1600 Display

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Debuts Thin Galaxy Tab S With Super AMOLED 2560X1600 Display

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday June 12, 2014 @09:31PM from the brand-new dept.

MojoKid (1002251) writes Samsung unveiled its latest flagship tablet, the Galaxy Tab S, at an event in New York City tonight, and the new device is thin, lightweight, and sports a killer Super AMOLED display. Samsung boasts that the Galaxy Tab S's 2560x1600 display has 73% better color reproduction than conventional LCD displays and can match colors up to 94% of "nature's true palette" with deeper blacks and a 100,000:1 contrast ratio. The 10.5-inch device weighs just 467g and measures a mere 6.6mm in thickness (and there's an 8.4-inch version, too). Under the hood, the Galaxy Tab S features Android KitKat 4.4, 3GB of RAM, 16GB or 32GB of storage with a microSD slot that supports up to 128GB. The front camera is 2.1MP and the rear 8MP camera has an LED flash. No word on the exact processor on board just yet, other than it's a quad-core SoC. It's likely a Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 though an Exynos variant or perhaps even Tegra 4 wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility.

176 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Time for an upgrade by CaptQuark · 2014-06-12 21:33 · Score: 0, Informative

Ok, I want one!!
1. Re:Time for an upgrade by by+(1706743) · 2014-06-12 22:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I think parent was merely pointing out that this seems like a legitimately cool product, as opposed to, "here's our existing product with a new name!"
2. Re:Time for an upgrade by JaredOfEuropa · 2014-06-12 22:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I want... similar drool inducing screen specs to make it into the bigger screens, where ultra-high resolutions actualy make sense. The choice in TVs and monitors with resolutions that exceed HD is still decidedly poor. On tablets, a high resolution helps especially when reading for longer periods of time, but I couldn't care less about black levels or color reproduction. Again, such features are more important for bigger screens.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
3. Re:Time for an upgrade by Nutria · 2014-06-12 22:15 · Score: 1
  
  You have a *lot* more disposable income that me. Childless?
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
4. Re:Time for an upgrade by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 22:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sure! Who needs kids when there's 7 billion of us worthless fucks already here!
5. Re:Time for an upgrade by Nutria · 2014-06-12 23:06 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Tell that to the actually worthless fucks who are still breeding like rabbits.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
6. Re:Time for an upgrade by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  Instead, it's "Here's a new product with the same name".
  They've got too many products out there called "Galaxy".
7. Re:Time for an upgrade by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 00:23 · Score: 0
  
  clearly you did as you took the time to post?
8. Re:Time for an upgrade by interkin3tic · 2014-06-13 02:27 · Score: 2
  
  Samsung has been on a real kick lately with locked bootloaders.
  
  Fuck any company that tries to limit what I can do with my possessions.
  
  Until they prove that this new tablet is easily rootable, so that you can do what you want on it, no self-respecting nerd should buy this.
  
  (And before any smartass pipes up with "customers are leasing it, not buying it" yeah yeah, you are very clever, but you and I both know that's horseshit.)
9. Re: Time for an upgrade by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  What are you talking about? They specifically allow boot loader replacement. Custom ROMs are part of Samsung's strategy.
10. Re: Time for an upgrade by interkin3tic · 2014-06-13 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  The link I provided explains what I was talking about: the galaxy S5 from AT&T or verizon is, in fact, locked down, and Samsung isn't doing anything about it. There's a $10K bounty for a workaround, but it's almost been two months.
  
  It may have been part of their strategy, but it seems with their "knox" development that they'd rather try to market their devices as totally secure, even if that means secure against users themselves.
11. Re:Time for an upgrade by sexconker · 2014-06-13 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  You have a *lot* more disposable income that me. Childless?
  The term "childless" is offensive and discriminatory.
  The proper term is "child-free".
12. Re: Time for an upgrade by sexconker · 2014-06-13 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  What are you talking about? They specifically allow boot loader replacement. Custom ROMs are part of Samsung's strategy.
  Samsung has been locking bootloaders lately. One of the more annoying tactics is to release a new device with an open bootloader, then lock it for subsequent production runs / the first minor revision under the same SKU. This means if you buy your device months after it's out, you've got a chance of getting a locked bootloader. Same goes for if you have to get your device repaired or replaced under warranty. Happened to my friend's S5. Now he's done with Samsung, and I don't blame him. My guess is that once enough of the carriers demand locked bootloaders, they just lock it for all subsequent production runs.
  Then you're stuck hunting for an older version, hoping that you can get the radios to work on your carrier, muddling through setting up APNs and changing baked-in shit - from carrier boot up animations to voice mail numbers, etc. And then you'll never receive an OTA update from your carrier, so you'll be stuck on Android X.Y.Z when everyone else is on X.W.U , leaving you with missing features and glaring security holes until someone hacks the bootloader, dumps a legit updated ROM, illegally disseminates it over the internet, and provides you with instructions on how to get all the various pieces to get yourself a working, updated phone.
  I'm truly sick of Android, but there's no other viable option.
13. Re: Time for an upgrade by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  I don't get it... Why don't you just buy products with unlocked bootloaders? You're aware of the Galaxy S5 Developer Edition or the S5 GPE (should be coming if not already here)... and probably the International Edition... Pretty sure all of those have unlocked/able bootloaders.
  You're also bitching about unlocking your bootloader (which means you're taking responsibility for your own device and therefore possibly not receiving official support / updates anymore)... then complaining you don't get updates.
  That's pretty stupid.
  Most people don't care for / want locked bootloaders - it's one less thing to worry about and is more secure.
14. Re: Time for an upgrade by ProzacPatient · 2014-06-13 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  I've come to accept "Galaxy" as their equivalent to the "i" that Apple appends to everything rather than seeing "Galaxy" as one specific product line.
15. Re:Time for an upgrade by Areyoukiddingme · 2014-06-13 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Behold, the latest wonder from Asus. UltraHD in a 28" screen for $650 at NewEgg. Limit 2 per customer. (No, they're not paying me to post this. I wish they were.)
  Yeah it's a TN panel, but the reviews show it can manage a standard color gamut better than pretty much any TN panel before it, while still benefiting from the TN design in its response time. It claims 1 ms grey to grey transition. Off angle viewing is better than many TN panels as well. And with the DisplayPort connection, it's capable of 60Hz vertical refresh at full resolution, something HDMI can't do until the new HDMI spec is finalized. It has one DisplayPort connector and two HDMI connectors (including one MDL-capable). Full range of display stand flexibility, including height, tilt, swivel and 90 degree rotation. Built-in picture-in-picture using multiple inputs simultaneously, or side-by-side mode from multiple inputs. Those last two being funky features I never even considered, but I'm not complaining.
  It's undoubtedly not the last word in UltraHD, but it's a FINE entrant in the race.
16. Re:Time for an upgrade by thegarbz · 2014-06-13 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  I would have to disagree that things like color and contrast ratio don't matter on portable displays. Why does one system matter more than the other? I see plenty of color critical applications for tablets and phone just as I do for desktops. Also I greatly prefer that the technology irons out it's bugs on a small cheap disposable device before I drop $2000 on a desktop monitor that will last me 8 years like my current one.
  Start small, get it perfected, increase the size. A perfectly valid development method.
17. Re: Time for an upgrade by interkin3tic · 2014-06-14 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, writing all android phones off is nonsense. However, Samsung does do what GP said, the unlocked versions are more expensive and not subsidized. And samsung IS the dominant manufacturer in android phones. The galaxy S5 would be a GREAT phone if they didn't pointlessly lock it down.
18. Re:Time for an upgrade by OffTheWallSoccer · 2014-06-14 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  And with the DisplayPort connection, it's capable of 60Hz vertical refresh at full resolution, something HDMI can't do until the new HDMI spec is finalized.
  It's already finalized: HDMI 2.0
Units! by SuricouRaven · 2014-06-12 21:35 · Score: 4, Funny

"The 10.5-inch device weighs just 467g and measures a mere 6.6mm in thickness" ...
1. Re:Units! by fractoid · 2014-06-12 21:51 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The 0.267m device weighs just 0.467kg and measures a mere 0.0066m in thickness.
  Happy now?
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
2. Re:Units! by Racemaniac · 2014-06-12 21:51 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  well, screens are even in metric countries still mostly measured in inch. a 10.5 inch screen is clearer than a 27cm screen.
  It's indeed strange and stupid, but unless there is a sudden movement to get rid of this convention, it's rather convenient to keep it that way. Everybody knows the sizes in inch of the screens they have, so if a new screen then also measures it in inch, it's easy to compare it to what you currently have.
  If i read somewhere the screen diagonal measured in cm, it's most of the time a tiny TV they're trying to make it sound bigger than it is...
3. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 22:06 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I prefer my units rounded.
  
  The 0m device weighs just 0kg and measures a mere 0m in thickness.
4. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 22:13 · Score: 0
  
  It's indeed strange and stupid, but unless there is a sudden movement to get rid of this convention, it's rather convenient to keep it that way. Everybody knows the sizes in inch of the screens they have, so if a new screen then also measures it in inch, it's easy to compare it to what you currently have.
  Yeah, I feel the time to change that would have been during the transition to widescreen. The diagonal dimension wasn't comparable over that anyway.
  Should have ditched that entire convention and moved over to square cm/dm, but I guess that was unthinkable since widescreen gave higher diagonal at less screen area. Marketing wins again.
5. Re:Units! by fnj · 2014-06-12 22:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  See? Imperial is no different from metric.
  The 0 mile device weighs just 0 hundredweight and measures a mere 0 miles in thickness.
6. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 22:46 · Score: 0
  
  True. It was a missed opportunity, and you're probably right about the reason.
  Personally I think it'd be most useful to know the height of the visible area (in cm), and the aspect ratio.
7. Re:Units! by GNious · 2014-06-12 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  I've travelled to quite a few European countries (I'm European), and most places, electronics-stores give screen-sizes in centimeters, not inches. Is more prevalent in east-european countries.
8. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 23:00 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I prefer my units rounded.
  sorry, Apple has the patent on that.
9. Re:Units! by Racemaniac · 2014-06-12 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  here in west europe, i also see it sometimes, but most of the times it's still inches. And when i see it in cm, it's just strange :p
10. Re:Units! by AmiMoJo · 2014-06-12 23:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  a 10.5 inch screen is clearer than a 27cm screen.
  It's really not though, at least to me. When you say 27cm I immediately have a firm idea of how big it is, but 10.5" is a bit vague for someone living in a (mostly) metric country. TV sizes are much easier to visualize in centimetres as well.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
11. Re: Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 23:26 · Score: 0
  
  also west europe here - while screens sizes are often advertised in cm (i guess that's the bigger number), they are usually compared and talked about in inches.
12. Re:Units! by Calinous · 2014-06-12 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  Romania has started Metrification about 150 years ago... but I'm still referring to mountain bike wheels as "of 26 by 1.9" (inches that is).
13. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  well, screens are even in metric countries still mostly measured in inch. a 10.5 inch screen is clearer than a 27cm screen.
  That's a typical comment from someone living in the US. People that live with metric know exactly what cm relates to regarding scale. The only exception would be the UK that's mixed.
14. Re:Units! by cdrudge · 2014-06-12 23:58 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Happy now?
  No. Why did you use kilograms when grams is obviously the base SI unit of measure?
15. Re:Units! by jones_supa · 2014-06-12 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  In Finland I have only rarely seen centimeters mentioned in screen sizes. It's generally inches through-and-through.
16. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 00:02 · Score: 0
  
  Go away.
17. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 00:05 · Score: 0
  
  Well, France started about 220 years ago. But tyres are a mess: width in mm on a wheel whose diameter is given in inches. This is despite the fact that Michelin tried to start a range of metric wheel and tyres dimension 40 years ago.
  When you take into account the fact that the profile ratio gives the diameter that the tyres add to the wheel, you end up adding inches and millimeters. Looks like a job for NASA.
18. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  Bicycle tire markings are a dark art.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_5775
19. Re:Units! by fractoid · 2014-06-13 00:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Because it's not. The kilogram is the base SI unit of mass (unintuitive as that may seem, given the included scale prefix.)
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
20. Re:Units! by Mr0bvious · 2014-06-13 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  Not here: http://www.fust.ch/de/r/tv-fot... (probably the most popular electronics store in Switzerland).
  
  --
  Never happened. True story.
21. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 00:18 · Score: 0
  
  The 0.267m device weighs just 0.467kg and measures a mere 0.0066m in thickness.
  Happy now?
  Actually no. The unit of weight is grams, not kilograms.
22. Re:Units! by danbob999 · 2014-06-13 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  Many "32" class" TV are in fact 31.5" when you look at the details because they are 80 cm which is even less than 31.5" (so should be rounded down to 31")
23. Re:Units! by DavidMZ · 2014-06-13 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  well, screens are even in metric countries still mostly measured in inch.
  It depends on the countries. From the countries I have seen:
  - UK, Japan: still using inches for TV screens
  - France, Germany: using cm for as long as I remember
24. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 00:35 · Score: 0
  
  In Germany it's actually mostly inflated inches for computer screens and cm for TV screens.
25. Re:Units! by geezer+nerd · 2014-06-13 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  Screen sizes are given in inches in New Zealand, though the country is metric for everything else. I don't know for sure, but my guess is that would be the same in Australia. When I was there, I did not go shopping for a screen.
  
  New Zealand converted to metric in 1969. Many people still alive remember the Imperial units used before then (and there are lots of UK immigrants and lots of UK and US television and movies), so references to older units are still understood by most people in everyday conversation. For instance, fuel efficiency in automobiles is still referred to commonly as "mileage".
26. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  Oh! Wow! The 27 one really sounds better than the 10.5 one! I'll take the 27 one.
27. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  In Spain we use inches to measure screen sizes and metric units for everything else.
28. Re:Units! by Racemaniac · 2014-06-13 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  i guess that's a compliment for my good english, but i'm european :p.
  and i know very well how much 27cm is, but i find it hard to translate to screen diagonal. I however know perfectly how big my currently 10" tablets screen is, and i've never looked at it as a 25cm tablet :p, or maybe i'm getting old and will have to face that slowly screens will be measured in cm and not inch.
  Knowing how much 27cm is, for me at least, doesn't give a good indication of what you'll exactly have. you have to compare it to similar screens you have experienced, and for me i've always seen them described in inches, so that's the reference for me.
29. Re:Units! by Blaskowicz · 2014-06-13 01:44 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Actually the unit of weight is newtons
30. Re:Units! by Blaskowicz · 2014-06-13 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Intuitively, the unit of mass should be a tonne?, 10^6 grams. That is the mass of one cube meter of water.
31. Re:Units! by Blaskowicz · 2014-06-13 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  Same in France with inches somewhat gaining hold in televisions (due to internet discussions and websites)
32. Re:Units! by dj245 · 2014-06-13 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  "The 10.5-inch device weighs just 467g and measures a mere 6.6mm in thickness" ...
  Not really that amusing. Screen sizes in even the most solidly metric countries are often measured in inches.
  
  --
  Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
33. Re:Units! by fractoid · 2014-06-13 02:10 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Metric isn't as perfectly logical as we'd have you believe.
  
  I mean, um, METRIC IS AWESOME.
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
34. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  TV sizes are much easier to visualize in centimetres as well.
  As a European, fuck no. TV's in inches, bitches.
35. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  Rounded and in exponential form!
  The 0*10^-3 m device weighs just 0*10^-3 kg and measures a mere 0*10^-4 m in thickness.
36. Re:Units! by amorsen · 2014-06-13 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Ha, you included UK in solidly metric. The UK has basically failed to switch. Only fuel is measured in metric units. Well ok, milk is sold in 568ml containers that do not say "pint" anywhere, but everyone says pint.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
37. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  Thats weird...in the US, while some of the old standard cheap bike brands still go by inches, the vast majority are in cm or mm - almost all frame sizes are in cm and I havent had a bike with inches for wheel sizes since the 80s.
38. Re:Units! by Racemaniac · 2014-06-13 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  i'm from belgium, and here inches are still dominating. it's indeed odd to see that when i go to a german site, that everything is in centimeters (though it would be nice to finally make the switch)
39. Re:Units! by Jmc23 · 2014-06-13 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  That's a typical comment from someone talking out their ass.
  Canadians and Mexicans both seem to understand inches better.
  
  --
  Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
40. Re:Units! by dubbreak · 2014-06-13 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  The 2.7 x 10^-1 m device weighs just 4.7 x 10^-1 kg and measures a mere 6.6 x 10^-3 m in thickness.
  Why doesn't slashdot allow the <sup> tag?!
  
  --
  "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
41. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  The 0.267m device weighs just 4.5797N and measures a mere 0.0066m in thickness
42. Re:Units! by Gibgezr · 2014-06-13 05:03 · Score: 2
  
  *Older* Canadians understand inches...my 4 kids all have no clue about them, they prefer centimetres.
43. Re:Units! by sexconker · 2014-06-13 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  The 0.267m device weighs just 0.467kg and measures a mere 0.0066m in thickness.
  Happy now?
  Fuck no, I'm not happy. .267 meters, 467 grams, and .0066 meters.
  Mass should be measured in grams by default. If you want kilograms to be the default because of your arbitrary preference, then shift everything by 1000.
  There's no reason other than "durr, I'm familiar with a kilogram" to have the default measure of mass be 1000 times the base unit.
44. Re:Units! by sexconker · 2014-06-13 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  They can say whatever the fuck they want, but the gram is the base unit of mass.
  A kilogram isn't a unit, it's a measure equal to exactly 1000 mass units (grams).
  The SI is full of arbitrary, ambiguous, retarded shit like this. I have no idea why people view it as some sort of authority on anything.
45. Re:Units! by sexconker · 2014-06-13 05:43 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Actually the unit of weight is newtons
  A Newton is a measure of force, not weight.
46. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  I'll prefer to keep my own unit. Mine is definitely thicker than 6.6mm.
47. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 06:05 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Well, it's a good thing that weight isn't the force experienced by mass via gravity then. Otherwise you'd look really stupid.
48. Re:Units! by Noah+Haders · 2014-06-13 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  True. It was a missed opportunity, and you're probably right about the reason.
  Personally I think it'd be most useful to know the height of the visible area (in cm), and the aspect ratio.
  well you can assume it's 16:9, since ALL tvs are this. I think the right thing is to just give the horizontal width. it's a wide screen tv, so how wide is it?
49. Re:Units! by MarcoAtWork · 2014-06-13 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  in Italy TVs have been sold measured in inches since the very beginning, and Italy is as metric as they come. Fun random fact, they are actually said to be xx 'thumbs' wide (pollici)
  
  --
  -- the cake is a lie
50. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  Actually the unit of weight is newtons
  A Newton is a measure of force, not weight.
  Weight is a force. Only a fool confuses weight with mass...
51. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  No, he's right, weight is a force. A mass of 1 kg exerts a force of 9.80665 Newtons at G which and that force is known as it's weight. In zero G that same mass is weightless
52. Re:Units! by OhSoLaMeow · 2014-06-13 08:37 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Why doesn't slashdot allow the <sup> tag?!
  What's <sup>?
  
  --
  They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
53. Re:Units! by Chaset · 2014-06-13 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  In Japan, they use the number of inches, but stick a placeholder word "gata" ("shape" or "format") rather than "inch" to the end. I read that this is because inch is not a legal unit of measure (Japan is metric) so they're not allowed to use it in advertising. So 42" TV is 42-gata TV. I don't think I've seen the cm measurement other than in the "detailed specs" of a product.
  
  --
  -- "This world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel."
54. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  says you.
  the new samsung tablet, 10.5 inch version, weighs in at about 1.14 newtons, where 1 newton = 410 grams
55. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  Weight it described as changing with gravity, so I would say that it is a measure of force.
  Though I think weighs x kg is colloquially the force of that much mass in earth's gravity.
56. Re:Units! by GNious · 2014-06-13 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  Mediamarkt Belgium indexes their TVs in cm, but then provides details in inches :)
57. Re:Units! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 20:23 · Score: 0
  
  Actually for most IT-related screens (especially computer monitors), inches have been prevalent in France.
  TV sizes are still mostly in cm, but since the 2000s inches have been gaining ground.
58. Re:Units! by perryizgr8 · 2014-06-13 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  because kilograms is the SI base unit.
  
  --
  Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
59. Re:Units! by swillden · 2014-06-14 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the unit of weight is newtons
  What, do they have to dig him up every few years and update the current value, or did they weigh him at death or at some other point? Basing a system of measure on a physical object is problematic.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
60. Re:Units! by RivenAleem · 2014-06-16 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, they did away with the old tons.
Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 21:46 · Score: 0

Call me when it runs Linux and has 8GB of ram. Tablets are so 2010.
1. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 22:27 · Score: 0
  
  You. I like you.
2. Re:Meh by jc42 · 2014-06-13 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  Android is Linux, dumbass.
  Yeah, but crippled by a crappy GUI designed for a 3" screen and hands that can't touch type or use a pencil.
  
  --
  Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
3. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  <3
4. Re:Meh by dave420 · 2014-06-13 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  So use a bluetooth keyboard. The GUI is actually rather good. It sounds almost as if - heaven forbid - you don't actually know what you're talking about...
5. Re:Meh by joemck · 2014-06-13 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  It's good for a small-screen touch GUI. It can get irritating on a screen big enough that you *could* have 2 apps tiled side by side, with a floating music player miniwindow in the corner, if only it would let you. Sure, there's a few apps that can make a floating window, but this is a tiny minority. Besides, even on a ~10" touchscreen the "floating windows over a desktop" design is irritating. The ability to tile normal apps that usually run fullscreen would be great.
  Bluetooth keyboards? Yeah, they're nice, but quite often unless you're using an on-screen keyboard that explicitly supports them, the keyboard app pops up anyway. Or my favorite: SwiftKey, which recognizes that you're using an external keyboard and hides its on-screen one, but still autocorrects what you type based on how you type on a touchscreen. And then there's how long it took Android to make the ctrl key work like a normal modifier and not like sticky keys. Also, near complete lack of keyboard shortcuts. I shouldn't need to lift my hands from the keyboard and mess with the touchscreen to do simple things like save, undo, switch between two text entry apps, or even just send a chat message.
  App switching gets irritating as well. I haven't tried it on a TouchWiz device, but the usual procedure is to long-press home until an app list comes up. This is slower and more tedious than tabbing through apps on a desktop OS. Then add in that apps get frozen when tabbed away from, and sometimes inexplicably quit altogether. Yes, this is ultimately the fault of the app developer, but it really shouldn't be necessary to write a daemon to make an app that can do stuff while you're not looking at it, or do your own state saving to make an app not reset to its main menu should the OS decide to page it out of memory. It seems even Google themselves can't get this stuff right: Gmail *always* quits and has to reload when I switch to another app, and whenever I open Play Store it seems like it's about 50/50 whether it's going to show me the last thing I looked at or the main menu.
  Desktop OSes have done all this stuff seamlessly for a decades. On a PC, if I minimize something I can 100% trust that it is still there and doing anything I asked it to do, even if I can't see it. Android has repeatedly taught me to change this assumption.
  As for "Android is Linux", yes it is, and I really appreciate that. But that still doesn't fix that its command line is crippled and horrible in comparison. It's like normal *nix command line, minus a handful of the more useful commands, and with others missing options or modified not to produce useful output. Among other things, I have seen an ifconfig that never prints anything, and an rm that complains about the file -rf not existing.
6. Re: Meh by Sepodati · 2014-06-13 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  You're bitching that a smart car is horrible for hauling goods cross country.
7. Re:Meh by Anne+Thwacks · 2014-06-13 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks to Unity, Linux now has the same problem. Please can I have xfce on my SGS3!
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
8. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  It's good for a small-screen touch GUI. It can get irritating on a screen big enough that you *could* have 2 apps tiled side by side,
  In that Samsung you can.
9. Re: Meh by Blaskowicz · 2014-06-13 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  You can attach a trailer to a Smart.
id get one but by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 21:54 · Score: 1, Informative

id get one but I'm gay so I have to buy apple
1. Re:id get one but by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 00:02 · Score: 0
  
  +1 Funny for being so inapt and unwieldy.
73% better color reproduction than conventionalLCD by birdspider · 2014-06-12 21:56 · Score: 1

wow thats .... unhelpful
Differences to TabPro? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 22:02 · Score: 3, Informative

These tablets sure look nice. The main downsides seem to be (i) price and (ii) Samsung's customized TouchWiz UI (so you gotta wait for custom ROMs).
But the question in my mind is the following: how do these differ from the TabPro tablets? They look quite similar to me... Thoughts?
1. Re:Differences to TabPro? by CastrTroy · 2014-06-12 23:23 · Score: 2
  
  Personally, I find android to be not so great for tablets. I can understand Samsung wanting to use a custom UI as the stock one doesn't allow multiple apps onscreen at the same time. Personally, I really like the UI on my Surface 2. My only major complaint is the lack of apps.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
2. Re: Differences to TabPro? by Teranolist · 2014-06-12 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  Or you could install another launcher, so no need for custom roms to change the ui (I use go launcher on my phone with original rom for example cause i hate touchwiz)
3. Re:Differences to TabPro? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 01:12 · Score: 0
  
  They're designed to watch videos on them. The 16:10 aspect ratio they use is terrible for anything else.
4. Re:Differences to TabPro? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  The 16:10 aspect ratio is quite welcome, and better than most. Far from being terrible, it is a good compromise for many uses, including ebooks, web content, and even video. If software actually puts the controls on the right edge, it is also fairly flexible. (Sadly, the fixed soft buttons on Android can waste a significant amount of space in the wrong orientation, but that isn't a hardware problem.)
  Admittedly, the option for smaller aspect ratios like 14:10 or even 1:1 would be useful, especially at small sizes. Ultimately though, different applications have different requirements, and this one-size-fits-all aspect ratio mentality is truly obnoxious. For all of the countless options available in the marketplace, it is frustrating that there is so little variance in display offerings. Not only with aspect ratios, but refresh rates, color depth, gamut, reflective technologies, etc.
What about tetrachromate women ? by advid.net · 2014-06-12 22:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

If it can match colors up to 94% of "nature's true palette" , maybe it could be used to display a test for tetrachromate people ?
I always wanted to make such a test, but I was quite difficult with real pigments.
I hope some application will try to make such a test, it would be amazing !
1. Re:What about tetrachromate women ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 22:32 · Score: 0
  
  Here's a quick hands-on of the Galaxy Tab S at tonight's NYC press event. Notice how smooth and responsive it is, even though it's pushing 4 million pixels at 2560X1600 res.
  !!!
2. Re:What about tetrachromate women ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 22:55 · Score: 0
  
  > maybe it could be used to display a test for tetrachromate people ?
  I don't think so: I guess the color space of the OLED will be three-dimensional (with better saturation and perhaps better resolution, but still mixing three basic colours), while the colour space of tetrachromate people is four dimensional. Unless you convince Samsung to build OLEDs with four photophores... which might come at a slightly higher price tag, given the small target market.
3. Re:What about tetrachromate women ? by jpatters · 2014-06-12 22:59 · Score: 0
  
  It is most likely an RGB display, so its color gamut would be limited to what can be made out of those three wavelengths, and not anywhere close to 94% of "nature's true palette". Seriously, if Apple made that claim about a display, they would be a hundred posts by now mercilessly mocking them.
  
  --
  "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
4. Re:What about tetrachromate women ? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-06-12 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  I thought adding a fourth color was considered anyway, even if only for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency of these displays?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
5. Re:What about tetrachromate women ? by interkin3tic · 2014-06-13 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like you have been beaten to the punch. Anyway, I'm not sure why it would matter: they're so rare that the chances of one coming across a screen that could display the test is pretty low.
  
  Consider that cameras and monitors don't even capture the full range in terms of dark to light that the NORMAL human eye can see. Extra color information, like resolution, is one of those things that you need to actually see and get used to before you become willing to shell out extra money for it. I have an AMOLED screen on my phone, which supposedly shows darker blacks and more brilliant colors. I like it, but I'm not going to pay hundreds of dollars on my next phone for it.
6. Re:What about tetrachromate women ? by tlhIngan · 2014-06-13 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  It is most likely an RGB display, so its color gamut would be limited to what can be made out of those three wavelengths, and not anywhere close to 94% of "nature's true palette". Seriously, if Apple made that claim about a display, they would be a hundred posts by now mercilessly mocking them.
  Yeah, that's been a huge problem. The iPhone 4s has a 99% sRGB display, while the iPhone 5/5s has a 100% sRGB display. And my Dell monitor has a 107% NTSC display.
  Color spectra is fun! But given that the "visible spectrum" is a curved area, approximation by a triangle is generally quite hard, especially with 94% coverage.
  In fact, given most of the content this thing displays will be sRGB or so, what generally happens Is you get a lot of pop - the colors are oversaturated, etc., which makes the photos look nice, but damn inaccurate because now the color accuracy is off (if it wasn't, you'd get good looking photos, but most of the available palette is wasted).
Battery life? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 22:17 · Score: 0

...of perhaps 10 minutes? But wow what a 10 minutes it will be with such a screen!
Screw this thin crap by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 22:19 · Score: 0

Give me a nice fat tablet with features, not this thin crap you could break by breathing on it.
1. Re: Screw this thin crap by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 04:34 · Score: 0
  
  Microsoft Surface Pro 3.
  You're welcome.
2. Re: Screw this thin crap by Anne+Thwacks · 2014-06-13 06:27 · Score: 2
  
  "features" and "bugs" may be the same thing in Microsoft's world, but to the rest of us, they are completely different things.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
But can it run Modern(tm) apps? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 22:28 · Score: 0, Troll

No? How about the old windows apps? No? Not going to do very well if you ask me. And i know because I am a certified MS expert in this field.
1. Re:But can it run Modern(tm) apps? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 22:53 · Score: 0
  
  Have you read the refund policy? Maybe you can still spend that money on something worth a damn. Yeah, I'm asking if you can actually read and understand what you're reading or if you just say "Accept" to any long text that you encounter :)
2. Re: But can it run Modern(tm) apps? by Teranolist · 2014-06-13 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  "certified MS expert" = You don't know shit?
3. Re:But can it run Modern(tm) apps? by ArcadeMan · 2014-06-13 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  And i know because I am a certified MS expert in this field.
  Somebody mod this guy funny.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
4. Re:But can it run Modern(tm) apps? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  No? How about the old windows apps? No? Not going to do very well if you ask me. And i know because I am a certified MS expert in this field.
  Yeah, right. Samsung's tablet computers have so far had a dismal commercial performance, because they are compatible with neither traditional Windows programs nor "Modern" apps. Of course. You nailed it, Mr. (Ms.?) Certified M$ Expert.
94% of "nature's true palette"? by wonkey_monkey · 2014-06-12 22:44 · Score: 1

match colors up to 94% of "nature's true palette"
I assume they actually mean 94% of the colours humans can see - unless this thing can spit out X-rays.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:94% of "nature's true palette"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 23:06 · Score: 0
  
  Well, we designed the 2MP front camera to be able pick up X-rays so that the tablet can identify the user by dental records (purely as an anti-theft device, I assure you), but we found that we needed an emitter for that to work so we built that into the display. Then marketing caught wind of the feature, and here we are.
2. Re:94% of "nature's true palette"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  The next version will also have a gamma ray emitter to showcase their hilarious new "Give Your Friends Cancer" app.
3. Re:94% of "nature's true palette"? by wbr1 · 2014-06-12 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  I assume they actually mean 94% of the colours humans can see - unless this thing can spit out X-rays.
  That is part of their new user/ad tracking software.
  
  --
  Silence is a state of mime.
4. Re:94% of "nature's true palette"? by Bongo · 2014-06-12 23:51 · Score: 1
  
  match colors up to 94% of "nature's true palette"
  I assume they actually mean 94% of the colours humans can see - unless this thing can spit out X-rays.
  Hee.
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/31/Radioactive_Man.jpg
5. Re:94% of "nature's true palette"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  If my old old CRT emitted X-rays, then why couldn't a tablet?
Re:73% better color reproduction than conventional by fnj · 2014-06-12 22:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

It doesn't even mean a single goddam objective thing.
What about tetrachromate women ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 22:56 · Score: 0

Can't be done when the pixels are still only trichromate. To produce a tetrachromaticity test you'd need a RYGB display and two images that are different in RYGB space but appear the same when viewed with a RGB sensor (i.e. most people's eyes).
Super AMOLED a welcome upgrade by PSdiE · 2014-06-12 22:57 · Score: 2

I own the Tab 2 and it's a great device - but the poor black contrast lets it down, particularly when watching video. On my Galaxy S4 mobile the blacks (eg, dark scenes or fade to black in movie) are pure black, better than iPhone and others .. whereas on the Tab2 they're distinctly grey due to the LCD backlight. Super AMOLED is superb.
1. Re:Super AMOLED a welcome upgrade by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 23:07 · Score: 0
  
  aslong as that shit isn't pentile
2. Re:Super AMOLED a welcome upgrade by NormalVisual · 2014-06-12 23:27 · Score: 2
  
  Super AMOLED is superb.
  
  Agreed, as long as you're inside. My S4 is a bear to use outside because you just can't see the display worth a damn in bright sunlight.
  
  --
  Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
3. Re:Super AMOLED a welcome upgrade by Mr0bvious · 2014-06-13 00:25 · Score: 2
  
  I own a Tab 1, 2 and Note (all 10" versions) and I must say that the Tab 2 is absolute rubbish compared to the other 2. It is amazingly non responsive (slow).
  The Note is fantastic and the Tab 1 is pretty good - but what the hell did they do to the Tab 2? That thing was a step backwards from the Tab 1, I hate it.
  
  --
  Never happened. True story.
4. Re:Super AMOLED a welcome upgrade by synapse7 · 2014-06-13 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'm using a custom rom/kernel in my tab2 that overclock the video and cpu chips, and its not too bad. I think my next tab will be an 8" version.
5. Re:Super AMOLED a welcome upgrade by Mr0bvious · 2014-06-13 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  What ROM is that? I'd be interested in improving the performance of my Tab 2.
  
  --
  Never happened. True story.
6. Re:Super AMOLED a welcome upgrade by synapse7 · 2014-06-16 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  I've used this kernel with slimrom.net.
  http://forum.xda-developers.co...
  Currently using this ROM which comes with the previously mentioned kernel, either way works great.
  http://forum.xda-developers.co...
  If you get trickster from the playstore you can change all kinds of settings with the custom kernel, but the stock settings work great.
No word on cost by wiredog · 2014-06-12 23:17 · Score: 0

So it's probably about the same as the equivalent Apple Product. But without anything like iTunes behind it.

--

Best Slashdot Co
1. Re:No word on cost by wed128 · 2014-06-12 23:42 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  But without anything like iTunes behind it.
  Not having iTunes sounds like a feature...they should charge a premium.
2. Re:No word on cost by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 23:55 · Score: 0
  
  Not having iTunes sounds like a big selling point to me.
3. Re:No word on cost by Mr0bvious · 2014-06-13 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  The video in the linked article had more that a word on cost :). $499 for the 10", can't remember the other.
  Here's a direct link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  
  --
  Never happened. True story.
4. Re:No word on cost by MightyYar · 2014-06-13 00:31 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  You jest, but I would love to have something available in the open source world that can:
  - Hold all of my media
  - Curate it (rankings, playlists, etc.)
  - Make it available on my various mobile devices and computers
  - Make it available on my TV
  - Let me play it over remote, synchronized speakers.
  - Change ratings from my mobile devices
  Right now I can't do all of those things, and so I end up stuck in iTunes. I run Subsonic, which does a lot of that, but does not allow per-file rankings and does not play over remote speakers. Well, technically I got a single set of remote speakers to work using an open source airplay tool, but it loses the synchronization and is a PITA to switch target speakers. I run Plex, which is great and has some good mobile tools - but does not have remote speaker or curator tools on par with iTunes. Things move fast, so maybe I'm just not keeping up - but I would love to ditch iTunes. It forces me to keep an old Mac running 24/7. Yes, I could move it to a newer PC but I already have the Mac, so...
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
5. Re:No word on cost by wiredog · 2014-06-13 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  A feature to us, perhaps (although it's not that difficult to get non iTunes files onto an iPad), but to the average consumer? If it isn't priced aggressively it will have trouble competing against the iPad.
  
  --
  
  Best Slashdot Co
6. Re:No word on cost by Overzeetop · 2014-06-13 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Were only the interface not a steaming pile of laggy shit, I would agree with you. But, oh, the torture of actually trying to curate a collection of anything but consumer audio in iTunes (and even just audio in iTunes) has made me long for the days of frustrating Media Monkey add-ons. I use iTunes because I have iDevices, but it sucks so bad I've done essentially nothing with mu library organization since I switched 5 years ago. And don't even get me started on video - I can't even use video on my portables - Apple decided with the last update to eliminate the titles, so all I have of my collection is a screen cap of the first few seconds of video - a hundred different views of the Universal or Fox or Disney logo. Dumb shits. Not to mention that, afaik, you can't stream from your library to a portable device (though you can to ATVs, which can be nice, but nowhere near as user friendly/useful as, say, Plex).
  iTunes is probably useful if you purchased everything - and only commercial - audio from Apple iTMS, like/agree with their tagging standards, and listen casually. That may be a lot of folks, but it certainly isn't my use case.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
7. Re:No word on cost by MightyYar · 2014-06-13 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that the interface is lacking, and I'd even be willing to run multiple (compatible) solutions. I just can't find anything with the same capabilities. I really, really would like to switch. I was hoping that "MagicPlay" would help fill the gap, but I never heard another word after the initial flurry of announcements a year ago.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
8. Re:No word on cost by LordLimecat · 2014-06-13 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like the services google provides, except for this:
  
  Let me play it over remote, synchronized speakers.
  Which is called "bluetooth".
  Android has the benefit of not needing to be plugged in to do a lot of it, too.
9. Re:No word on cost by MightyYar · 2014-06-13 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Google's services are nice, but have several limitations:
  - Library supports music only
  - Library is limited to 20,000 songs
  - I'm just as tied to a proprietary solution as I am with iTunes.
  
  Which is called "bluetooth".
  That's not the functionality I want. I'm looking for something like Sonos or Airplay offers. I can put a Sonos box (expensive) or Airport Express (cheap) in each room where I want music. Then I can select which rooms I want to play the music (say, deck and living room) and the music will be in sync so that you don't get a weird echo effect. MagicPlay was supposed to be an open-source version of this but I don't see any activity.
  iTunes has the additional fun feature at parties where I can give anyone with Wifi access to the iTunes library and they can vote for music while iTunes is in DJ mode. It's not critical, but it is fun. I have an Android app that lets me do this from my phone.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
10. Re:No word on cost by westyvw · 2014-06-13 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. Fancy features like the OP mentioned are worthless if the app itself sucks at doing its primary function. Laggy, bloated, ad-laden, crippled, non extensible, garbage. When it is horrible at managing music, I cant see the point of giving a damn about remote ratings.
Re:Nice specs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 23:28 · Score: 0

...or does Android run on it?
samsung hardware is good, software is terrible by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-12 23:37 · Score: 0

Samsung hardware is most excellent, but their software is awful, i thought itunes was bad but Samsung Kies takes it to a whole another level of poor quality, never mind if something goes wrong and you have to use their support website which firefox/chrome/MSIE cant parse with numerous server errors/script errors multiple registration procedures.
my phone died and i had to return it, their site refused to work and i had to call them on the phone to get any resolution, truly the worst experience i have ever had with a tech company, itunes may suck but at least it works
1. Re:samsung hardware is good, software is terrible by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  Yep. Samsung's software and support sucks big time. Which is a shame, because the hardware is usually quite nice, despite the questionable design choices.
2. Re:samsung hardware is good, software is terrible by ArcadeMan · 2014-06-13 03:06 · Score: 2
  
  The best hardware in the world is useless without software.
  If the software sucks, the hardware doesn't matter.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
3. Re:samsung hardware is good, software is terrible by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 05:12 · Score: 0
  
  You don't really need Samsung Kies you can use other ways to add music and other stuff
4. Re:samsung hardware is good, software is terrible by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  iTunes is the worst bloatware i have laid my eyes on it's even more bloated than Windows Media Player
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those by smittyoneeach · 2014-06-12 23:44 · Score: 1

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those,
Running Hadoop, one must suppose.
For NoSQL's the buzzword everyone knows,
Though dropping ACID many further problems can pose.

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
New Marketing method, sell the screen? by danknight48 · 2014-06-13 00:05 · Score: 1

Under the hood, the Galaxy Tab S features Android KitKat 4.4, 3GB of RAM, 16GB or 32GB of storage with a microSD slot that supports up to 128GB.

But hey, at least we know what the screen size is!
This hardware must be so hot, internal chip specs are not required.
Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 00:26 · Score: 1

Android is Linux, dumbass.
Re:Nice specs by S.O.B. · 2014-06-13 00:57 · Score: 1

If a robot is moving quickly with it then you can say it "runs on android".

--
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
Don't believe the hype. by Ecuador · 2014-06-13 01:40 · Score: 3, Funny

They say "94% of nature's true palette" yet it still cannot reproduce a single shade of octarine...

--
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Too bad most laptops are going the other direction by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 01:41 · Score: 0

Am I the only one who thinks it seems to be getting harder and harder to find reasonably priced laptops with high resolution displays?
Concerned about all these ads by 2ms · 2014-06-13 01:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why is there such an incredible number of advertisements for products like this on Slashdot these days? Surely no one actually considers it news that the latest model of some commodity consumer electronics product has a faster processor and more compact form factor than its predecessor.
1. Re:Concerned about all these ads by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  >> Why is there such an incredible number of advertisements for products like this on Slashdot these days?
  Someone has to pay for Beta.
2. Re:Concerned about all these ads by timeOday · 2014-06-13 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Have to take issue with you on this one. AMOLED is actually a big deal. That's why it's mentioned in the title, and that's why it's newsworthy. I don't want to upgrade my TV again until I can get an OLED.
3. Re:Concerned about all these ads by Salgat · 2014-06-13 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  I don't mind a productive discussion on an exciting new electronics product. Would you be angry if there was a submission announcing the release of the Xbox One or PS4?
Removable battery? by sremick · 2014-06-13 02:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

Does this have a removable battery?
I've stopped buying consumer electronics that take the markedly ANTI-consumer and needless action of making non-removable batteries. I realize this eliminates most tablets* but I really have little use for a tablet (my job has provided several for me to use but I really couldn't care less about them, having tried them).
* - And all Apple hardware, but I'm ok with that too.
1. Re:Removable battery? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  Does this have a removable battery?
  I've stopped buying consumer electronics that take the markedly ANTI-consumer and needless action of making non-removable batteries. I realize this eliminates most tablets* but I really have little use for a tablet (my job has provided several for me to use but I really couldn't care less about them, having tried them).
  * - And all Apple hardware, but I'm ok with that too.
  Right on! I tried forever to figure out how to remove the battery from my iMac!
2. Re:Removable battery? by MarcoAtWork · 2014-06-13 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Right on! I tried forever to figure out how to remove the battery from my iMac!
  your iMac CMOS battery will die eventually too, how easy is it to replace?
  
  --
  -- the cake is a lie
3. Re:Removable battery? by Solandri · 2014-06-13 08:15 · Score: 3, Interesting
  I've stopped buying consumer electronics that take the markedly ANTI-consumer and needless action of making non-removable batteries.
  That was true about 10 years ago, but I don't think it's true anymore.
  
  10 years ago, devices typically used the full capacity of the battery and topped off when full. Consequently it would wear out quicker. After a year of use, it would probably only hold half the charge it did new. After 3 years it would probably only last 5-15 minutes. Being able to replace the battery was important then for the longevity of the device. Today most manufacturers do not use the battery's full capacity. They typically allow it to be charged only to 90% of real max capacity (the software just reports this as 100%), and discharged to 10% (reported by the software as 0%). The batteries on all my newer devices which are 3-5 years old are still lasting 70%-90% as long as they did new.
  
  10 years ago, laptop batteries in particular would only last 1.5-2.5 hours on a charge. Anything over 3 hours was considered long. Today, 4-5 hours is typical, and many will operate 6-10 hours. So there's less need to have a second spare battery you can swap in.
  
  I empathize with those whose usage patterns fall outside of these cases, and who could really use a second battery to swap in. But in general I think the extra capacity and smaller size that comes from molding the battery to fit in limited space and not having to encase the battery in a protective plastic housing are a worthwhile tradeoff. Bear in mind that when user-replaceable batteries were common, they were substantially overpriced and probably represented the biggest rip-off in the tech market after $100 for an extra 16 GB of flash memory.
4. Re:Removable battery? by AmiMoJo · 2014-06-13 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  In theory what you say is true, but it doesn't take into account how hard some devices push batteries these days. High current charging doesn't do them much good, and neither does heat which is a shame because due to decides being so thin and fanless they tend to dissipate a lot of it into the chassis (and thus the battery). Some laptops have even started providing chargers that can't actually power the damn things, relying on the battery to provide extra current when needed. If you push the machine hard a lot, e.g. gaming, it kills the batteries quite quickly.
  The thing is that there is no need for it. My LaVie Z is thinner and lighter than a MacBook air but is easily opened with some standard PZ screws, and the battery, wifi/BT and SSD are then easily replaceable. It's got a better CPU and screen as well. It is possible to make devices serviceable, it's just that some companies choose not to.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
5. Re:Removable battery? by thegarbz · 2014-06-13 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  markedly ANTI-consumer and needless action of making non-removable batteries.
  You're joking right? Consumers are pushing a desire for thinner lighter devices capable of longer and longer run-times with higher loads. Something has to give when you are designing around these requirements. A lot of modern devices are thin because their batteries lack any kind of protection. Using flat lithium cells gives the designer far more flexibility to design a product rather than having a full battery pack with protective case and protection circuit. The average consumer is likely to damage the types of batteries used in these devices and burn their house down in the process.
  Given the pace of technology and the average use life of such devices, replaceable battery is one feature I really no longer care about. And if the batteries actually fail a quick and quite cheap trip to the repair shop will see it swapped out.
6. Re:Removable battery? by sremick · 2014-06-14 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  You're joking right? Consumers are pushing a desire for thinner lighter devices capable of longer and longer run-times with higher loads.
  Believe it or not, consumers also like to not have to replace their device in 2 years because the battery only holds half the capacity it used to. Just because it's not on the box or part of the advertisement's spiel doesn't mean it's not something consumers care about. There are plenty of consumers who can see into the future beyond the length of their nose.
  
  Something has to give when you are designing around these requirements. A lot of modern devices are thin because their batteries lack any kind of protection. Using flat lithium cells gives the designer far more flexibility to design a product rather than having a full battery pack with protective case and protection circuit.
  You seem to be under the misconception that these rule each other out. Do you do much electronics repair? How many devices have you owned? Opened? Replaced the batteries on? I am on a tablet right now that is thinner than a Microsoft Surface Pro 2, but unlike the Surface it has a user-removable battery and doesn't sacrifice run-time to get it. My cell phone is thinner than an iPhone... and guess what? Removable battery.
  Manufacturers aren't making non-removable batteries because of design constraints. They're making them non-removable because it ensures that when the battery wears out, the consumer is forced to buy a new model. Otherwise why permanently epoxy the battery into the device? I know all about unprotected lithium cells... I'm a certified Apple technician and have opened plenty of MacBooks. But you can have a battery that uses the case of the device to protect it without gluing the damn thing in so it can't even be serviced by someone with the proper training and tools.
  
  The average consumer is likely to damage the types of batteries used in these devices and burn their house down in the process.
  I'm well aware of this... it's made quite clear in our training and quite obvious when you're working on them daily. But it's not as necessary as you've been fooled to think. The "design constraints" and "users are demanding thinner" is just the bullshit lines they've come up with as an excuse to mask the actual reason: enforced obsolescence and increased revenue stream. If it were actually true, there would be no need for the epoxy, and no other manufacturers proving them wrong.
  
  Given the pace of technology and the average use life of such devices, replaceable battery is one feature I really no longer care about.
  That's nice. Not everyone is rolling in cash and prepared to buy a new phone or tablet every 2 years, especially when there's no technical reason to have to do so. Consumers have been conditioned to accept a worn-out battery as a legitimate reason to trash their otherwise perfectly functional and adequate device, which is insane and inexcusable. This would've never been accepted pre-iPhone/iPod. My sister's HTC One X is less than 2 years old and already can't hold a charge worth a damn. The phone is already 3 times the phone she needs, so why should she be forced to buy a new one? It's criminal. Luckily I am willing to replace it for her but HTC has made it unnecessarily difficult for no legitimate reason. There are thinner phones with user-replaceable batteries... they could've made it so she could do it herself, but that wasn't advantageous to their bottom line.
  
  And if the batteries actually fail a quick and quite cheap trip to the repair shop will see it swapped out.
  WHAT "repair shop"? Maybe for the lucky subset of people who live in cities near an Apple Store or some other electronics shop. But guess what? There's a lot more to the USA and world than the big cities. And the fact remains: there's no need for it to not be replaceable by the consumer. There's no need for them to pay $80 to have som
7. Re:Removable battery? by thegarbz · 2014-06-14 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  You're absolutely right, except where you're completely wrong.
  Consumers don't like to replace their device in 2 years because of battery? Not a problem. I don't think I've ever met anyone who swapped because of a battery. They swap because their contract is up, because the new shiny thing came out, because all their friends have one, not because of a battery (by the way my Samsung Galaxy S is still working fine on it's original battery). Manufacturers do NOT need to make a device wear out, the vast majority get replaced while fully working, or due to physical damage. But hey it's not like the worlds most popular phone has a non-removable battery right? You've found one lone example to prove your point? My sister, my girlfriend, my mother, and I have never upgraded anything due to a battery that can't hold charge. Do I win now?
  Why do people replace shit all the time? Because the devices are thrown at them. I replaced a perfectly good Galaxy S with an S2 and that perfectly good phone with an S4 because ... they arrived in the mail. Subsidized marketing ensures that every homeless bum on a government handout can afford a fancy smartphone.
  I'm an engineer, how many devices have you actually DESIGNED? They do rule each other out. Your tablet is thinner than the Surface 2? Wow it's thinner than the biggest "tablet / half PC and the few feature packed Intel devices on the market? It's like saying eating macdonalds is healthy because I do it and I'm thinner than the world's biggest man on a diet. Try opening a device. There is zero space between the backplane of a screen and the cover of a battery while they circuit boards consume. Having a large component is a limiting factor. You're filling the inside of the device with plastic. Simply finding a manufacturer who doesn't care about this limitation is not proof that the limitation doesn't exist.
  As for repair shop, your joking right? I didn't say Apple Store, I didn't say electronics shop, I said repair shop. Even in small country towns you'll find some old guy willing to swap the board for you. Or find some Asian student who'll do it for some pocket money. The last "repair shop" I saw sold plastic phone covers, screen protectors, and the guy said given a weeks notice he can repair devices too (i.e. order a replacement off ebay and swap it out for you for pocket money). It's not very hard actually, I'm beginning to think you're the one who's never opened such a device.
  If you can't find a way to get it fixed, you're not putting in a lot of effort. Anyway given profit and sales figures I think the rest of the world actually agrees with me.
  Now bring on that new tablet my Nexus 10 is getting old!
My Samsung superamoled display got dim by presidenteloco · 2014-06-13 04:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

after only a few years of operation, there is a noticeable dimness to the screen, so that it is unusable in daylight.
I've read that AMOLED displays degrade quickly in their brightness.
Great for you if you are a company wanting to sell me a new phone every two years. Sucks for the consumer who might want to keep their phone 5 or even 8 years like I kept my last pre-smartphone.

--

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
1. Re:My Samsung superamoled display got dim by thegarbz · 2014-06-13 20:06 · Score: 1
  
  Sucks for the consumer who might want to keep their phone 5 or even 8 years like I kept my last pre-smartphone.
  Just another example of being unable to please everyone. The vast majority of consumers these days don't use their phones for anywhere near that long. It's true AMOLEDs do tend to die over time but they will far outlive the average service life of the phone (far less than 5 years).
Re:73% better color reproduction than conventional by Jmc23 · 2014-06-13 04:49 · Score: 1

Of course it does.
Unfortunately, it seems your brain is to puny to understand math and the objective measures that are used to measure colour reproduction.
You must be from one of those countries with third world education systems.

--
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Marketing, I am tired of hearing about OLED by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 07:20 · Score: 0

Marketing has been spouting off for a decade or more about OLED. Either bring it on, en masse, or please shut up about it. This has got to be one of the longest running vapor marketing products I have heard of... (not any longer, but still not available en masse, at a reasonable price point).
Re:73% better color reproduction than conventional by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 16:58 · Score: 0

Fuck you.
Re:73% better color reproduction than conventional by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 18:08 · Score: 0

Unfortunately, it seems your brain is to puny to understand math and the objective measures that are used to measure colour reproduction.
Huh? There is no device I can use to measure "good/better/best" on an objective scale. Somehow you missed the inherent subjectivity of "73% better"