Toshiba Intros Three New "Ultrathin" Laptops

[exfileme]

All three have ten-point touch input, making them great for Windows 8 navigation.

Toshiba Intros Three New "Ultrathin" Laptops : Read more

 

[BringMeAnother]

HD probably means 1366x768 for all 3. Disappointing. Resolution is one of the most important spec, along with the processor for me and it just keeps being disappointing.

 

[John Bauer-1363825]

[quotemsg=11277128,0,733778]HD probably means 1366x768 for all 3. Disappointing. Resolution is one of the most important spec, along with the processor for me and it just keeps being disappointing. [/quotemsg]

When the display is 13" or under, a 1366x768 display isn't half bad, really.

When I look for a new laptop (which I have been) I look for 2 things, 6gb+ RAM and 4 hours+ of battery life. And an i5 or better processor. I found a laptop on newegg with 8gb of RAM and an i7 processor for $514.

 

[Estix]

[quotemsg=11277301,0,1363825]When I look for a new laptop (which I have been) I look for 2 things, 6gb+ RAM and 4 hours+ of battery life. And an i5 or better processor. I found a laptop on newegg with 8gb of RAM and an i7 processor for $514. [/quotemsg]

I first look at the screen - 1440x900 is the bare minimum for me. It wouldn't matter to me if it had dual Xeons if the system bottleneck is me having to scroll around or alt+tab all the time

 

[faust_67]

1366 X 768 and 10/100 ethernet? Were these models developed from scrapped projects from 2005?

 

[John Bauer-1363825]

[quotemsg=11278936,0,83951]1366 X 768 and 10/100 ethernet? Were these models developed from scrapped projects from 2005?[/quotemsg]

It'd work for me. Considering my Internet speed is 700 kb/s.

 

[squirrelboy]

I wonder why they keep calling screens with a lower than 1080p resolution HD screens. my 4 year old laptop has a 17,3" 1600x900 screen, and they even dared to call that "HD+"

 

[damianrobertjones]

HD starts at 1280x720.

As for the screen... It's not that bad. I'd rather see what I need to see than zoom or go blind. Having 1600x900 would be better but anything above that would probably need you to change to 125% DPI... REDUCING your working space.

Don't fall for the marketing. Once ALL screens hit 1080p there will be something else for you to complain about. When traveling you only need to view things quickly and when stationary you can plug in that fancy 27" high res screen.

 

[stevejnb]

I have a Windows tablet with a 1920x1080 resolution on an 11 inch screen and I oftentimes find myself having to zoom in just to read regular text. Frankly, really high resolution screens on smaller devices are vastly overrated, and not worth even a small hit to battery life or performance. Does it output to higher resolutions when you hook it into a monitor or TV? If yes - and they all do - then that's the only high resolution I care about.

 

[kyuuketsuki]

[quotemsg=11277301,0,1363825]When the display is 13" or under, a 1366x768 display isn't half bad, really. [/quotemsg]
Considering the devices in question are 14" and 15.6", I'm not sure why devices 13" and under are under discussion.

Basically, these are yet another promising laptop line ruined by the choice to use bottom-of-the-barrel screens. It's not like these are going to be good quality, IPS 768p screens. OEMs choose 768p because the panels are dirt cheap -- if they wanted to use quality panels, they would have used a better resolution as well.

Also, if you're using a small device with a high-resolution screen, you should have DPI scaling on if you want readable text.

 

[John Bauer-1363825]

[quotemsg=11283386,0,96459][quotemsg=11277301,0,1363825]When the display is 13" or under, a 1366x768 display isn't half bad, really. [/quotemsg]
Considering the devices in question are 14" and 15.6", I'm not sure why devices 13" and under are under discussion.

Basically, these are yet another promising laptop line ruined by the choice to use bottom-of-the-barrel screens. It's not like these are going to be good quality, IPS 768p screens. OEMs choose 768p because the panels are dirt cheap -- if they wanted to use quality panels, they would have used a better resolution as well.

Also, if you're using a small device with a high-resolution screen, you should have DPI scaling on if you want readable text.[/quotemsg]

I agree with you- the technology for cheap 1080p screens is there, but no one will use it because of the cheaper 1366x768 screens. My "laptop" a Dell Inspiron 1100 (with 256mb of RAM) has the same display. Laptop (and monitor) res's have stagnated, but demand for a cheap higher res screen isn't there, people are more interested in 1080p screens on their 5" phones.

If there was some sort of revolution of some kind, it's possible for $300-400 1440p screens, and sub$1000 4K screens. And I'm also talking about those 4K tv's that cost as much as a car.

 

[m32]

If tablets can have better screens, with lower inches and cheaper price, why can't computer manufactures match them? I thought 900p would've became standard years ago (from my 5 year lappy), but consumers aren't ticked off enough yet.

 

[mfnmedia]

also visit our web, laptop new laptop.usr.me