Quote:
Originally Posted by BackWoodsCoder
Not only agree but to add to that point, you dont go sterile from boiling your fishies lol
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by BackWoodsCoder
Not only agree but to add to that point, you dont go sterile from boiling your fishies lol
Why even ask?!?!? I live in Idaho! Suggesting I need TV for things like that is like suggesting a fish buy bottled water.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack
Well, I live in the Detroit area and the fish here have to buy bottled water. It is the only thing safe to come in contact with.
Even the bottled water comes with "boil before use" instructions.
1080p is 1080 progressively scanned (not interlaced) lines, usually assumed to be 16:9 ratio, a resolution of 1920 pixels wide by 1080 high.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
As said above, 1080p is 1920x1080.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
PPI is pixels per inch. Dealing with the same resolution say, 1080p, the smaller screen will always have a better PPI. E.G, the PPI of a 10 inch display with a 1080p resolution is 220 and on a 24 inch monitor it's only 90. The higher the PPI, the smoother text, UI, etc., looks. (That is, assuming the OS supports Hi-Res scaling, or whatever it's called, like on iOS, else it would just appear tiny.)
The iPad 3 with a 2048x1536 resolution is 260 which will look great but still fall short of the iPhone 4/4S's 326 PPI. It's still two and a half times the PPI of a 1440p (2560x1440) 27 inch monitor though.
Bingo, not just part but all of the problem.Quote:
Part of the problem may be cost/benefit.
Talk of screen resolution is miss-leading because, once again, it's mistaking tech with benefit. You could stick the highest resolution ever invented on watch screen and it would be a rubbish viewing experience because the issue (as with so much in life) is size, not resolution. You can prosletise as much as you want about how high your screen resolution is but you'll never escape the fact that yours is a measley 9 inches and mine is 52... which makes it more satisfying <knowing nod>.
Besides, I sit across the room from my tele and at that distance the screen has a higher resolution than my eyes do.
Thanks for the explanations, they have cleared up something that I have never bothered to learn. However, now that I have a better understanding, I find that I agree with FD. My monitor and video card are capable of displaying a higher resolution than I can easily read on. Therefore, I stepped it back a bit. The text is very crisp, still, but somewhat larger. My eyes used to be well above average, so that mattered, but I'm getting older. Distance vision is still excellent, I just see reading glasses in the next few years.
It's just the beginning though. The next step is high PPI monitors, in fact I believe Balmer even said to expect 250 PPI monitors soon. Your screen might look great, but it'd look better with twice the resolution even from a distance and that is the direction everything is moving. The order of improvement seems to be: Mobile Screens > PC Screens > TV Screens. The former is booming, the middle is starting, and the latter has a while to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I bet producing Avatar at 1440p would take so much longer than 1080p yet alone 2160p. We won't see TV screens with super high resolutions until we've got higher resolution movies.
There are already a few 2160p (Quad HD) televisions.
What are you gonna watch on those "Quad HD" televisions? Daily soaps?
Back when I was a kid, the television worked only for a couple of hours a day, in the evening, from about 7-9. Then it started airing programs from 6pm onto 10pm. Today there's 24-hr news channels. As the quantity and airtime have increased, the quality has geometrically decreased, with a result that even though today's TV channels show more than 50 programs in a day, hardly any are worth watching. Who cares if the TV is Quad HD when the content is all crap? And if the TV were to be switched off most of the time, it could be a VGA for all I care.
.
Eh? Really? Even so are they "mainstream" and affordable? I'm not thinking so. As the push into this area increases it'll become more mainstream, produce more competition, and have more affordable prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
I'm thinking movies and TV shows here, i.e, BluRay Plus Plus. Even 2160p would be way too big to download over the net, or sent via cable even I think. And more importantly, PC displays are where's it at yo. I don't know about you but gaming on a 250 PPI (or even higher) display would be amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
People will buy anything. Some people seek status by paying for the most expensive devices in class. I guess many of them must be desperate, small souls still trying to impress Daddy or something.
Yeah but if one of these QHD TVs is four or fives time or more the price, I doubt it'll be any but the rich buying them. (I don't actually know the price, it may be less.)Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
You're still missing the point. That's still just technology - and technology is irrelevant unless it offers a benefit. In this case the only benefit of your high resolution monitor is that it makes watching a movie on a piddly little screen marginally less unbearable. It could have a 10,000 PPI monitor and it still wouldn't compete.Quote:
The next step is high PPI monitors, in fact I believe Balmer even said to expect 250 PPI monitors soon
Why in the world would I want to watch a film on a 9 inch screen when I could be watching it on a 52 inch? Or bigger if I get round to getting a new telly. Why would I want to have your crappy sound when I could be rigged up through my full 5.1 surround sound system with ridculously powerful bass? Why would I want to reduce myself to an essentially solitary experience when I could invite my freinds over, open up a bottle of wine and moan about how George Lucas sold us out while secretly creaming ourselves over the effects?
In truth the only thing your slate has over my telly as far as viewing is concerned is that it's portable. But I can't think of anything worse than watching a film on a train. What a way to ruin the experience that would be.
And that's really my objection to these devices. They're one big compromise from start to finish. They do lots of different things quite well but I can't think of a single thing they do better than a dedicated device that already exists and which, invariably, I already own.
Hacks post a while back might have been a bit tongue in cheek (and VERY amusing:thumb:) but it's also right on the money for me. I wouldn't have bought a bigger table, though. I'd have just printed the recipe off the internet and blue tacked it to the wall.
Well now you've gone too far. We know you don't have any friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I have an HP touchpad (got it for $99 bucks) and I hardly ever use it. It is always easier to use my actual computer, which is never far away. I carry an Android and an iPhone, so I have the portable side of things covered. Granted the touchpad doesn't have a very good app catalog, and I might use it more if it did, but it would still mostly be for wasting time. I think the Windows 8 slates will be interesting, because they will be a true hybrid of what I am used to and love, and the newer touch side of things. Windows 8 itself is a bit of a hybrid, so it might just make for the best solution. The whole x86/arm thing might be messy though, since there is little Windows based software that runs on arm at the moment. I would stick with an x86 if possible.
Same difference, whether it's movies or daily soaps. Only a handful minority of them are worth watching, which is like two or three a year. Should one really spend moolah on buying a high res TV which will be used at most for a week a year? Why not go to the movie theatre instead?Quote:
Originally Posted by Icyculyr
Gaming? Yeah, right. I am dying to see the sweat on the guy's forehead and I am gonna not shoot him till the droplet forms on his brow, slides down and then drops to the ground. Boom! I am dead.
.
As I said I wouldn't watch it too often on a small screen, but still I would simply watch it for how great it will look. (Assuming it is as stunning as I imagine, which may turn out to be false, but I don't believe so.)Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
It's really PC monitors that I want to see this high resolution stuff on, gaming would be amazing.
I watch more TV than that and I don't watch much TV. You'd buy what you'll get value out of, and if you watch TV for only a hour or so a week then it doesn't sound like a good idea. I, on the other hand, probably watch an average of three hours a week, and when some good movies are out at the video store, an additional two to six hours depending on how many I watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
It's not about seeing the sweat on his forehead, it's about seeing amazingly high resolution content. When you can look at a screen and not see little edges on everything. 250 PPI + 4x MSAA + FXAA would be outright stunning. Textures would look phenomenal, and I'm glad to say it would push NVidia and AMD to produce more powerful GPUs.
In fact, if you enable SSAA it renders the scene at twice the resolution of your monitor, and then downscales it which reduces jaggies, and actually having a screen able to display that content would be even better.
The funny thing is that the biggest advantage of a Windows NT tablet over an XYZ OS tablet is that you can install software you already use, and there is a vast supply of socuh software.
Yes, there is a ton of Windows software that runs on ARM: Windows CE ARM. But that won't run on Win8/ARM. Win8/ARM may turn out to be a loser: no more useful than another OS and a late-comer to the party.
Well, nobody doubts the technology you are quoting is superior to today's displays. What my concern is, when that technology is no use to me, why should I be spending money on it, other than as a matter of indulgence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Icyculyr
I have a car which I use to drive to work every day (and back). I could get a Mercedes in my salary (all of it, mind ya!), but the question is does it really matter if it's not a Mercedes? Sure it has no airbags, no climate control, no power mirrors, no tilt-adjustable steering, no cruise control, no sunroof, no retractable roof, no this and no that.
Point is I don't need it.
Same goes for the tablets. Are we seeing a spurt in tablet sales because the iMarketing and others have simply created a hype about the tablets being the next best thing to baked bread? Is it another useless product being shoved down our throats/wallets just because someone in the marketing team came up with the brilliant idea of making a gadget which can't be a proper phone or can't be a proper TV?
.
Why does it have to be either? It's a completely different class of gadgets. If they were useless we wouldn't see their sale sky rocketing, would we?Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
You guys (those in denial) need to be more philosophical about it - like I said before these are awesome devices that do have plenty of usage. Don't deny it only because you don't need it.
Very pointless discussion, btw.
Have you heard of anti-wrinkle cream? It doesn't work; it's useless; it sells by the bucket load. Never underestimate human stupidity.Quote:
If they were useless we wouldn't see their sale sky rocketing, would we?
Let's not forget the Pet rock, "workout shoes", and the most recent "power" bracelets. I've heard somewhere that the makers of the bracelet will have to pay around $60 million in a class action lawsuit. If you ask me I'd put that money in the budget and write it off to customers as "stupidity tax". Who's to say that tablet market isn't just a fad.
Very cheap and pointless comment pal. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Pointless?! Ah, yes. I see what you mean. Tablets are not useless because they're selling like crazy. And we know people never buy useless things and they never fall for marketing tricks. If the Tabacco industry only knew this when they were sued for marketing to kids, they wouldn't have lost so much money.
Stop comparing apples and oranges - creams [for that matter] are cheap ($20 bucks won't hurt anyone's budget) and also often offered on try-it-before-buy-it basis; tablets are expensive so someone needs to plan for budget, you can return it of course but return ratio is negligible.
Start making a little more sense, c'mon...
The fact is, you wouldn't buy it if you don't see any value in it. However, I do have use for a slate for the sake of convenience and not necessarily need. (As do others, and I'm sure some need it for certain things too.)Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
Ultimately, if I buy a product and it isn't what I thought it was or doesn't actually do anything useful for me, then I will return it. In this economy, I would expect that is true of many and hopefully all.
Ah, I wish it were true. Is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Icyculyr
I mean, can I buy an iPad and then try to make it boil eggs for me, and then realize I am a vegetarian and have no use for boiled or unboiled eggs, and then return it to Apple saying it can't fry the eggs?
.
I honestly don't think I am. I lived with a girl once who spent a staggerng amount on this kind of stuff. Face creams, fake tan, cleansers to remove the fake tan... She probably bought the equivalent of an ipad about once every two months. The only difference was that she was spending her money incrementally. Any given purchase was small and I guess that could make a psycological difference but really that's just a further manifestation of human stupidity. Overalll I just don't think that the argument that because something sells it has's useful holds water. There are too many examples that disprove it.Quote:
Stop comparing apples and oranges
Looking back over the ark of this thread I do think there's a point that isn't being made. You guys that are arguing that slates are useful tend to be doing so because they give you pleasure. Does that make it "useful"? Does it represent a "need"? I think that's actuallly quite an important question. I think we in the nay camp are saying no but you guys are saying yes and perhaps you're right. After all, I spent quite alot of money on my TV and the only thing it really does is give me pleasure. I use my PC for development but I've got to admit I could run a much cheaper one if I didn't want to use it for gaming too.
If we take the position that make us feel good is a use then the argmument for a slate is pretty much won, as long as it makes you feel good. And whether that feeling good comes from some concrete benefit (which I personally still struggle to identify) it fulfils or whether it's just about owning a gadget is largely irrellevant. I'm not sure that stuff really represents a "need" but does that really matter?
Yeah. Most of our purchases come down to desires rather than needs. A couple years back I just stopped buying as much stuff, and shaved about $7000 off of annual spending without seeing any change in my lifestyle. I still buy things that I could do without. I sometimes wonder what my actual needs are, since they certainly aren't what I am currently spending money on.
In any case, tablets fall into the same category as TV, for me. It's something that just isn't worth the money considering the way I want to live my life. But the way I live my life changes, and my view of the tablet may change, as well. I did have a use for a PDA, though only a marginal and contrived use. The same could be done with a smart phone or tablet, but the use was too contrived to justify going after it.
Various people I work with (including myself) have occacionally suggested moving some of our data acquisition onto devices like that. I have to remind them (including myself) that doing so would be a totally irrational idea, since the conditions are so harsh that electronic devices would have to be hardened to survive, which means that they would cost VASTLY more than the write-in-the-rain paper that we currently use. There would be some advantages, though, in that some transcription errors would be removed by removing one of the data entry steps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
IMO these two last posts sum up this thread very nicely and make clear valid points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Why did I have to read the entire thread when you guys could have posted these two posts as reply #1 and #2 :D
You can turn any undamaged Apple device up to 14 days later regardless of reason. For all they care, you could say it didn't give you force powers like Yoda. Else, you could sell it for a small loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
Icyculyr I think it's time you whip up an avatar. Every time I see you post I keep thinking you're a new comer :bigyello:
If I returned it back to Apple, would they refund the whole amount? What do they do with such a device?Quote:
Originally Posted by Icyculyr
If I were to buy an iPad, how do I know it wasn't bought and then returned by another moron like me?
.
They repackage it and sell it as new in poorer countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
What if the buyer from the poorest of the poor countries returned it? Who do they sell it to?
What if the piece this buyer bought was used for two weeks each by customers in some of the more developed countries? Does this buyer get a piece that's been used for a whole year, but returned every 14 days because it cannot haul the cattle back in the evening?
.
You make a good point. Done :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
You get your money back, all of it. They would either repackage it as new, or more likely in my opinion, sell it as refurbished.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
That kind of thing doesn't happen lol. But nonetheless, I think they sell it as refurbished like I said above. Not too many iPads get returned :pQuote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
Because we were fulfilling a need to waste our time by posting in CC.:bigyello:Quote:
Why did I have to read the entire thread when you guys could have posted these two posts as reply #1 and #2