Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 21st Oct 2012 15:11 UTC
The Next Web: "Google has also been working with Samsung to launch a 10-inch tablet, confirming leaks which suggested Google had teamed up with the Korean manufacturer for another device. Our source tells us that internally the tablet goes under the name 'Codename Manta', runs Google's new Android 4.2 operating system (previously referred to as Key Lime Pie, but is set to retain the Jelly Bean branding), and will offer a 2560x1600 pixel (10:16) resolution, which we believe will offer around 300 pixels per inch compared to the new iPad's 264 PPI." Between the iPad and this supposed Android tablet... Poor Surface. Poor, poor Surface.
Thread beginning with comment 539348
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Why the focus on screen resolution?
by drcouzelis on Sun 21st Oct 2012 15:51
in reply to "Why the focus on screen resolution?"
Member since:2010-01-11
RE: Why the focus on screen resolution?
by quackalist on Sun 21st Oct 2012 16:15
in reply to "Why the focus on screen resolution?"
Member since:2007-08-27
Up to a point, though marketing speak aside the new 'retina screen' on the iPad is lovely. It almost made me want one and I find it's OS a pain-in-butt. So I, imagine most everyone given the choice, want it's equivalent in their choice of tablet, laptop etc.
Edited 2012-10-21 16:16 UTC
RE[2]: Why the focus on screen resolution?
by Yoko_T on Sun 21st Oct 2012 20:37
in reply to "RE: Why the focus on screen resolution?"
Member since:2011-08-18
Up to a point, though marketing speak aside the new 'retina screen' on the iPad is lovely. It almost made me want one and I find it's OS a pain-in-butt. So I, imagine most everyone given the choice, want it's equivalent in their choice of tablet, laptop etc.
I frankly don't see the point of a 10+-inch tablet. All you're basically getting is all the hassles of a laptop, with none of the benefits.
RE: Why the focus on screen resolution?
by kholinar on Sun 21st Oct 2012 16:38
in reply to "Why the focus on screen resolution?"
Member since:2007-09-10
Because eye strain is a real issue vs. minor clock speed bumps and bad glass with 10 mp sensors.
Readability at these resolutions and distances is a real benefit, far more so something like he video in a living room.
But it's nothing like the megapixel or clock speed races because there's a limited return on anything past retina until you jump to 4k. This is just the minimum that all displays should have been pushing to for years...
Until you've used one for a while and return to a normal display, you won't get it.
RE[2]: Why the focus on screen resolution?
by dvhh on Sun 21st Oct 2012 16:54
in reply to "RE: Why the focus on screen resolution?"
Member since:2006-03-20
If it is not about clock race and megapixel, why is Apple also making benchmark ?
If I had the option I would choose e-ink for readability (plus I'm pretty sure that looking at backlit display in wrong condition cause more eye strain than low resolution display, because you know ... gameboy)
RE[2]: Why the focus on screen resolution?
by WereCatf on Sun 21st Oct 2012 18:04
in reply to "RE: Why the focus on screen resolution?"
Member since:2006-02-15
Because eye strain is a real issue vs. minor clock speed bumps and bad glass with 10 mp sensors.
Readability at these resolutions and distances is a real benefit, far more so something like he video in a living room.
Readability at these resolutions and distances is a real benefit, far more so something like he video in a living room.
Alas, colour gamut, contrast and brightness affect readability much more than the occasional bump in PPI at these resolutions. You can cram 20 000 x 20 000 pixels in the screen if you want but it won't be readable and it will definitely cause eye strain if colours, contrast and brightness are subpar, ie. high pixel count is not a substitute for those. That's exactly why I am asking: why masturbate to high pixel count when concentrating on the other aspects is much more beneficial after a certain point?
This is just the minimum that all displays should have been pushing to for years...
I have to say that I disagree.
RE[2]: Why the focus on screen resolution?
by tupp on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 19:39
in reply to "RE: Why the focus on screen resolution?"
Member since:2006-11-12
Because eye strain is a real issue vs. minor clock speed bumps and bad glass with 10 mp sensors.
Not sure what is meant by this statement, but eye strain is not affected by the resolution of a display as much as how something is rendered on that display.
Readability at these resolutions and distances is a real benefit, far more so something like he video in a living room.
Which resolutions? Which distances?
What type of rendering? What type of content? How keen is the viewer's eyesight?
All of these variables are important to establish in determining the validity of such a "readability" claim.
But it's nothing like the megapixel or clock speed races because there's a limited return on anything past retina until you jump to 4k.
"Retina" is an Apple BS marketing term (as is "4k" in the cinematography world).
Resolution is purely a matter of degree -- there is no magical resolution range "of limited return" that Apple has discovered.
"Effective" resolution is determined by the variables mentioned above.
This is just the minimum that all displays should have been pushing to for years...
There is this small consideration in manufacturing called "practicality."
Furthermore, with computer devices, there is this limitation known as "bandwidth capability."
Until you've used one for a while and return to a normal display, you won't get it.
Perhaps it would be best if we didn't live the fanboy stereotype.
By the way, for about 15 years, one could use Linux terminal emulators with LCD/LED screens. When the resolution was properly set, the font in these terminals was perfectly aligned with each pixel, so that the characters were razor sharp, with no aliasing. Thus, these 15-year-old terminal emulators were sharper than aliased fonts on "retina" displays.
Edited 2012-10-22 19:42 UTC
RE: Why the focus on screen resolution?
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 21st Oct 2012 17:53
in reply to "Why the focus on screen resolution?"
Member since:2006-12-05
Why do people and companies focus so hard on resolution? Everyone keeps masturbating to ever higher pixel counts while all the other features -- both in software and in hardware -- are ignored.
It's quite simple, really. Higher pixel counts basically translates to higher res screens which allows the display of higher quality boobs. And that is something that can be worth masturbating over.
I guess the problem occurs when people masturbate over the thought of such a screen, without any porn on the screen in front of them.
RE: Why the focus on screen resolution?
by ParadoxUncreated on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 12:46
in reply to "Why the focus on screen resolution?"
Member since:2009-12-05
How gay to mention masturbation in every second sentence. OFCOURSE you would want HIGH resolution, on a SMALL display.
Very cool news. It seems though that certain people think the opposite, who I have always found to be really offensive. No doubt they block rational thought and the praises of God, and brilliance and excellence in all spheres of life.
Provocative idiocy, all the way to the "cottaging", where no humanity is left.
If you have been on the internet for a while, you notice this.
So yeah, praises of God, or cottaging? 
Peace Be With You.
RE[2]: Why the focus on screen resolution?
by BluenoseJake on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 15:39
in reply to "RE: Why the focus on screen resolution?"
Member since:2005-08-11
RE[2]: Why the focus on screen resolution?
by WereCatf on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 17:05
in reply to "RE: Why the focus on screen resolution?"
Member since:2006-02-15
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Why does Google get so much credit in the technology industry? Why, despite the company's many obvious failings, do many geeks and enthusiasts still hold a somewhat positive view on the all-knowing technology giant? A specific talk at Google I/O this week provides the answer.
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
OSNews is a sponsor of this year's O'Reilly OSCON in Portland, Oregon, USA. A lucky OSNews reader will win a free three-day pass, including two tutorials days. To win the pass, post a comment on this story saying something about Open Source Software or OSCON. We'll pick a winner at random next week. If you don't have an OSNews account, you may email us your entry. Part of the conference is the 9th annual Open Source Awards, and today the 16th is the deadline for nominations. If you'd like to nominate an outstanding open source contributor, do it here. Read on for more information about OSCON. Update: The 20% discount code for OSNews readers is "OSN."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
"Windows is indeed slower than other operating systems in many scenarios, and the gap is worsening." That's one way to start an insider explanation of why Windows' performance isn't up to snuff. Written by someone who actually contributes code to the Windows NT kernel, the comment on Hacker News, later deleted but reposted with permission on Marc Bevand's blog, paints a very dreary picture of the state of Windows development. The root issue? Think of how Linux is developed, and you'll know the answer.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
This is one of those news items that's fun to write, fun to read, fun to comment on, and where no one will be able to say anything unkind. It's all just one big ball of awesome fluffiness. TuneTracker, the BeOS radio automation software, has just released something very special: TuneTracker System 5, the first version designed entirely and specifically for Haiku. In fact, it actually includes Haiku in the software package. Better yet, TuneTracker also unveiled several system-in-a-box products - which have Haiku and TuneTracker pre-installed.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Exactly twenty years ago, a document was published that played a huge role in establishing the web as we know it today. Twenty years later, and this simple and straightforward document is proof of an irrefutable fact: while closed technologies can change markets, open technologies can change the world.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Oh multitasking. That staple of computing that got thrown out the window with many modern smartphones. We got some rudimentary thing in its place - but even as multitasking on phone and tablets improves, its user-visible side remains cumbersome. Windows 8 has a neat implementation, and now it's time Android follows in it footsteps.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
They're here! Whether that excites you or not remains to be seen, but the Galaxy S4, which will most likely become the best selling Android smartphone of the year by a huge margin, has been reviewed by all the major sites, and there's lots of interesting conclusions in there - although I think most of you will get the gist.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Nokia has posted its quarterly results for the first quarter of 2013, and just like the quarters that came before, there's not a whole lot of good news in there. The rise in Lumia sales still can't even dream of making up for the sales drop in Symbian phones, and when broken down in versions, the sales figures for Windows Phone 8 Lumias in particular are very disappointing. In North America, Nokia is getting slaughtered.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
The day has finally come: Google has started shipping Google Glass to the lucky few early adopters. Now that it's shipping, Google has also unveiled a lot more about the API and the specifications of the device itself. While the company had already given out substantial details at earlier occasions, there are still a few surprises here.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
Almost exactly three years ago, I wrote about why OSNews was no longer OSNews: the alternative operating system scene had died, and OSNews, too, had to go with the times and move towards reporting on a new wave of operating systems - mobile, and all the repercussions that the explosion of smartphones and tablets have caused. Still, I was wondering something today: why aren't we seeing alternative operating systems on mobile?More Features »
Sponsored Links
Member since:
2006-02-15
Why do people and companies focus so hard on resolution? Everyone keeps masturbating to ever higher pixel counts while all the other features -- both in software and in hardware -- are ignored. IMHO Microsoft went the better direction with Surface's screen -- if what they claim about its better colour balance, gamut and brightness are true. I own an Acer Iconia Tab A500 which has 1280x800 pixels and I have no complaints whatsoever about the pixel count, but its colour representations leaves a lot to be desired.