- Status
nottheking
Distinguished
- Jan 5, 2006
- 1,456
- 0
- 19,310
[citation][nom]theoutbound[/nom]More impressive than the iPad from a hardware perspective, but what is with the low res screens on all tablets? It seems like at least 720p should be mandatory with these things.[/citation]
As I understand, shrinking the size of a single pixel inflates the cost, as well as potentially degrades quality. (due to the walls between pixels not shrinking as well, and hence becoming more apparent)
With your standard LCD monitor, you're at 90 dpi for, say, a 22" 1680x1050 widescreen monitor. With the HP slate, due to its 8.9" size it's running at 133 dpi, where afterward it starts to get more expensive rapidly. I'd wager the bulk of the iPhone 4's price increase over the 3GS, for instance, is its step up to a 336 dpi screen, (the increase in flash memory is only worth ~$12US) which is only practical because it was a mere 3.5 inches.
Higher up, taking a larger resolution would necessitate taking a larger screen size, too.
[citation][nom]dimar[/nom]at least 3GB DDR3 RAM.[/citation]
You ARE aware that memory modules come in sizes that are powers of 2, right? So 3GB would require 3 modules, an odd and awkward design.
[citation][nom]didymus03[/nom]Does anyone know anything about the gfx chip used in this thing? Anything you can compare it to in order to give a rough idea of its capabilities?[/citation]
It uses an Intel GMA 500. If you look more into that, you'll find that sadly, that's a PowerVR SGX 535. Sound familiar? That's because it's the same thing that the Apple A4 uses for its GPU. Some claim Intel has modified it, but as it stands, it's about comparable. Though for video playback, it does appear to have a separate chip to handle it.
But unfortunately, when it comes to 3D graphics, it's on a par. So while it sports a real OS and enough RAM, it's not gonna get anything like desktop gaming. A shame, since it'd be awesome to play StarCraft II on such a thing. But at least there's still StarCraft and WarCraft III.
[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom]Meuh!For 800 they should have equipped it with a Core2Duo or Corei processor![/citation]
Well, according to Apple, at least, getting a Core 2 Duo requires a minimum of $1,200US. And that's only a 1.4 GHz model cut to 3 MB of L2 cache. (in their MacBook Air 11.6")
As I understand, shrinking the size of a single pixel inflates the cost, as well as potentially degrades quality. (due to the walls between pixels not shrinking as well, and hence becoming more apparent)
With your standard LCD monitor, you're at 90 dpi for, say, a 22" 1680x1050 widescreen monitor. With the HP slate, due to its 8.9" size it's running at 133 dpi, where afterward it starts to get more expensive rapidly. I'd wager the bulk of the iPhone 4's price increase over the 3GS, for instance, is its step up to a 336 dpi screen, (the increase in flash memory is only worth ~$12US) which is only practical because it was a mere 3.5 inches.
Higher up, taking a larger resolution would necessitate taking a larger screen size, too.
[citation][nom]dimar[/nom]at least 3GB DDR3 RAM.[/citation]
You ARE aware that memory modules come in sizes that are powers of 2, right? So 3GB would require 3 modules, an odd and awkward design.
[citation][nom]didymus03[/nom]Does anyone know anything about the gfx chip used in this thing? Anything you can compare it to in order to give a rough idea of its capabilities?[/citation]
It uses an Intel GMA 500. If you look more into that, you'll find that sadly, that's a PowerVR SGX 535. Sound familiar? That's because it's the same thing that the Apple A4 uses for its GPU. Some claim Intel has modified it, but as it stands, it's about comparable. Though for video playback, it does appear to have a separate chip to handle it.
But unfortunately, when it comes to 3D graphics, it's on a par. So while it sports a real OS and enough RAM, it's not gonna get anything like desktop gaming. A shame, since it'd be awesome to play StarCraft II on such a thing. But at least there's still StarCraft and WarCraft III.
[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom]Meuh!For 800 they should have equipped it with a Core2Duo or Corei processor![/citation]
Well, according to Apple, at least, getting a Core 2 Duo requires a minimum of $1,200US. And that's only a 1.4 GHz model cut to 3 MB of L2 cache. (in their MacBook Air 11.6")
nottheking
Distinguished
- Jan 5, 2006
- 1,456
- 0
- 19,310
Wow, there's a heck of a lot of angry Apple fanboys here. They seem to not be able to handle facts that so much as even glance at Steve Jobs' ego the wrong way, and hence have to prove their loyalty by voting down comments where the facts get in the way of their dogma.
I would def go for the device with the FULL OS and FULL INTERNET capability. If you are spending that much money you should at least get an experience that's not watered-down like the iJunk. I think the W7 problems with touch is a minor fix. At least MS and HP will take care of it not like apple. They would tell everyone it was part of their iLife and to get over it.
http://www.EndUserIdiots.com
http://www.EndUserIdiots.com
seems to be ready for a complete internet experience,associated with a Window phone 7 and live Mesh,
melgross_85
Distinguished
- Apr 12, 2009
- 7
- 0
- 18,510
"..yet an iPad 64GB with WiFi & 3G cost over $900. Why are people comparing the iPad and the Slate? The Slate is a tablet PC with a real OS that you can install real software on. The iPad is a color e-reader that runs itunes aps. The iPad 64GB with WiFi cost $800...what would you rather have? I'll be buying the BlackBerry Playbook when it comes out but when tablet PCs come down to the $600 range I'll be getting one."
rmse17, where do you live? The top iPad, that you mentioned costs $829. The one without 3G costs $699. Stop making things up! With a slightly bigger screen and much better resolution, at 1024 x 768 vs 1024 x 600, even though the first one has no camera, it's a much more useful design. In March, it will kill this, and anything else out there, and other manufacturers know it, hence, this highly revised, expensive tablet is now for "business".
May it fail in peace.
rmse17, where do you live? The top iPad, that you mentioned costs $829. The one without 3G costs $699. Stop making things up! With a slightly bigger screen and much better resolution, at 1024 x 768 vs 1024 x 600, even though the first one has no camera, it's a much more useful design. In March, it will kill this, and anything else out there, and other manufacturers know it, hence, this highly revised, expensive tablet is now for "business".
May it fail in peace.
melgross_85
Distinguished
- Apr 12, 2009
- 7
- 0
- 18,510
"Wow, there's a heck of a lot of angry Apple fanboys here. They seem to not be able to handle facts that so much as even glance at Steve Jobs' ego the wrong way, and hence have to prove their loyalty by voting down comments where the facts get in the way of their dogma."
AppleIs-For-Idiots ", and Mr. Windows for Idiots, did you fall on your head today getting out of bed? Your user name tells us all we need to know about your level of intelligence, which apparently isn't very high.
You didn't say one useful thing. But, I guess that your mode.
AppleIs-For-Idiots ", and Mr. Windows for Idiots, did you fall on your head today getting out of bed? Your user name tells us all we need to know about your level of intelligence, which apparently isn't very high.
You didn't say one useful thing. But, I guess that your mode.
@melgross_85, I may be misunderstanding your point about the resolution, but are you implying that 168 vertical pixels make a device significantly more 'useful' than another device despite lacking much functionality in software and hardware? I strongly disagree (from experience).
From how much I've used it, the ipad is a decent device - just too limited for my needs.
From how much I've used it, the ipad is a decent device - just too limited for my needs.
danwat1234
Distinguished
- Jun 13, 2008
- 1,400
- 6
- 19,315
nottheking
Distinguished
- Jan 5, 2006
- 1,456
- 0
- 19,310
[citation][nom]melgross_85[/nom]Your user name tells us all we need to know about your level of intelligence, which apparently isn't very high.You didn't say one useful thing. But, I guess that your mode.[/citation]
Resorting to ad hominem attacks, now are we? I think that says all we need to know about your capability of formulating thoughtful arguments; screw the inconvenient facts, just hurl mud at those that say things you don't like: THAT will show 'em!
Also, can you find ANY source that agrees with your claim that 168 extra horizontal pixels is "much better?" Especially when it comes at the cost of losing all the features I mentioned in my prior, intelligent, well-written comments? I mean, the iPad doesn't support Flash, so that means no cruising over to YouTube or Vimeo and browsing whatever you like; you can DO that on the Slate. Or, for that matter, you can write off using a large portion of the web, since a huge portion of them rely on Flash; using an iPad means limited, "mobile-style" watered-down web browsing; the Slate can handle it just like it's a PC. To get that sort of capability from a compact Apple product, expect to shell out $1,200 for a MacBook Air.
You can also run any program you want on the Slate, and much easier than on an iPad: no hassling with jailbreaking it, just use it! And of course, you can run programs designed for a desktop, because you don't have to work with a dinky 256MB of RAM; you've got a whopping 2GB available. And it's proper DDR2 as well, not slowpoke DDR1 like the iPad uses.
Apple has a history of grossly over-pricing its products for what they offer. Once more and more comparable tablets enter the market, expect the iPad's sales to chill super-quick. All HP really needs to do (and should've done for their initial release) is put out a model with the RAM cut to 1 GB; that would've cut the price to $699US to match the base 64 GB iPad, and make all the iPad's shortcomings painfully apparent; as at $699, a Slate would trump the iPad in all features and capabilities.
So right now, the iPad is still a rich man's toy; you can basically use a DSi from Nintendo to do virtually all that is done on an iPad. The Slate is a capable tool, a full, true computer.
Resorting to ad hominem attacks, now are we? I think that says all we need to know about your capability of formulating thoughtful arguments; screw the inconvenient facts, just hurl mud at those that say things you don't like: THAT will show 'em!
Also, can you find ANY source that agrees with your claim that 168 extra horizontal pixels is "much better?" Especially when it comes at the cost of losing all the features I mentioned in my prior, intelligent, well-written comments? I mean, the iPad doesn't support Flash, so that means no cruising over to YouTube or Vimeo and browsing whatever you like; you can DO that on the Slate. Or, for that matter, you can write off using a large portion of the web, since a huge portion of them rely on Flash; using an iPad means limited, "mobile-style" watered-down web browsing; the Slate can handle it just like it's a PC. To get that sort of capability from a compact Apple product, expect to shell out $1,200 for a MacBook Air.
You can also run any program you want on the Slate, and much easier than on an iPad: no hassling with jailbreaking it, just use it! And of course, you can run programs designed for a desktop, because you don't have to work with a dinky 256MB of RAM; you've got a whopping 2GB available. And it's proper DDR2 as well, not slowpoke DDR1 like the iPad uses.
Apple has a history of grossly over-pricing its products for what they offer. Once more and more comparable tablets enter the market, expect the iPad's sales to chill super-quick. All HP really needs to do (and should've done for their initial release) is put out a model with the RAM cut to 1 GB; that would've cut the price to $699US to match the base 64 GB iPad, and make all the iPad's shortcomings painfully apparent; as at $699, a Slate would trump the iPad in all features and capabilities.
So right now, the iPad is still a rich man's toy; you can basically use a DSi from Nintendo to do virtually all that is done on an iPad. The Slate is a capable tool, a full, true computer.
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
Honestly, I think HP made a huge mistake in re-orienting the Slate to be enterprise-only. I think the Slate really had some potential, running a full-fledged desktop OS on decent hardware. Really, it's a shame.
[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]Honestly, I think HP made a huge mistake in re-orienting the Slate to be enterprise-only. I think the Slate really had some potential, running a full-fledged desktop OS on decent hardware. Really, it's a shame.[/citation]
Define "decent hardware" for Windows 7...
This slate is destined to failure just like any previous Windows OS tablet.
Define "decent hardware" for Windows 7...
This slate is destined to failure just like any previous Windows OS tablet.
twidget1995
Distinguished
- Dec 4, 2009
- 3
- 0
- 18,510
It's about $500 too much. Specc'd like the earlier tablet computers - under-powered and overpriced.
twidget1995
Distinguished
- Dec 4, 2009
- 3
- 0
- 18,510
Specc'ed like the earlier tablet computers - overpriced and underpowered. Drop the price about $400-$500 and it'd be a winner.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question New build wont post Gigabyte B650M Gaming Plus wifi , AMD Ryzen 5 7600X CPU, 32GB T-Force RGB DDR5. Need help!
- Started by Notmiserable
- Replies: 26
-
Discussion PSU recommendations and power supply discussion thread - Tom's hardware- Started by Darkbreeze
- Replies: 2K
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Question Upgraded from a 1060 6GB to a 2070 Super, barely notice the difference in fps???- Started by MrFlyingstickman
- Replies: 17
-
Question Debit card compromised, paranoid about malware
- Started by royrichard1290
- Replies: 3
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram