Do many of you still see no need for a slate/tablet?

[techgnome]

I plan to get one eventually... there are times when I need/want to look something up... I should be able to look it up faster on a tablet than having to fire up the laptop, wait for windows to load... login... wait some more.... open browser... blah blah blah....and I do plan to use it for media/streaming consumption... netflix, nhl, mlb... having a tablet will allow me to do that w/o tying up the computer for it... I don't plan to play games on it (that just seems silly) nor do any development on it... might do some development for it... And if I get one with HDMI output, I can hook it up to the TV for those times when I want to watch nhl or mlb on a big screen.

-tg

[Shaggy Hiker]

You'd watch movies on it???

One thing that has long baffled me has been the portable TVs. Now, I don't have one, nor do I have any other kind of TV, but I do watch TV. The only justification that I can see for watching TV or movies on a tiny screen is because you can't watch them on a bigger screen. I can see that watching a movie on a tablet would be superior to watching one on a smartphone, but both suck, one just sucks a little bit less than the other.

We should be demanding better screens. Wearable screens. I don't want to have a four inch screen, or a nine inch screen, I want a portable device with a 200 inch screen, and the only way to do that is to come up with a wearable screen. I'm amazed that they are so bad, still. The advantages, especially in this mobile age, are too obvious to pass up. The first eyeglass screens I saw were in the mid-90s/ They weren't really useable back then, and the current ones don't seem to be any better.

[techgnome]

Yes, I'd watch movies on it... I wouldn't make a habit of it... that's why what ever tablet I get has to have a hdmi output on it - the Kindle Fire doesn't so I won't be getting one of those) ... I'd then have my NHL and MLB apps on it that allow me to watch my hockey/baseball games on it... plus when I then travel, I can d/l movies on it and watch on the plane, bus, whatever without having to 1) worry about streaming or 2) lugging a laptop with me...

-tg

[Hack]

You guys need to come out of the Middle Ages darkness and jump into the 21st century sunshine.

There is much light in darkness

Say you like to cook and need a recipe but don't have much space on ther table

Buy a bigger table

Someone likes to read books, magazines, nespapers while in transit...

Then read a book, magazine or newspaper while in transit. Those things still get published ya know.

We are thinking about giving out these devices at work to replace traditional notepads (and pencils to save the forrest

Just like my wife and the cell phone...you might give me one, but that doesn't mean you can make me use it.

[kregg]

Hack,

[RhinoBull]

After reading your respond Hack, I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

When you guys don't like something or perhaps can't afford it (I don't really know which one applies here so no offence please) you will be screaming your lungs off how useless the "thing" is.
Makes sense to me... Give yourself a life at last.

[Hack]

After reading your respond Hack, I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

Laugh. For the most part I was just bustin' your stones.

Actually, my wife, daughter and son all have one (although I'm not sure from what vendors) and I can definately see a reasonably large coolness factor.

Having said that, however, give me a real book and/or real newspaper any day of the week.

[dilettante]

Part of the problem may be cost/benefit.

In a lot of ways tablet devices are still a bit expensive, heavy, and fragile to replace some of the things they otherwise might.

Taking notes on them isn't the most wonderful experience yet even when you use one supporting true pen input with good handwriting recognition. Palm rejection is something they need to work on for example so that writing can be less like using a paintbrush. Who writes without the side of their hand in contact with the surface?

Apple did everyone a disservice by pushing low-res capacitive (stylus-free "touch") screen digitizers, now almost all "pad" devices only offer this crude form of input. Cf. "Yes, You'll Own Two Tablets" What the ...? where I mostly talk to myself about some of the issues this has led to.

[Hack]

Taking notes on them isn't the most wonderful experience

It is interesting that you say this. My daughter majored in Marketing and she is currently working in that field for a jewelry store chain in the area.

She told me she bought her tablet primarily for taking notes during meetings but discovered that it was such a pain to actually use it for that purpose that she went back to pen and pad.

Mostly now she uses it just for fun/entertainment stuff.

[dilettante]

Mostly now she uses it just for fun/entertainment stuff.

Bingo!

Sad though.

On the plus side they can be derned useful in a meeting for a quick stab at the interweb to look something up or grab a file you need from the LAN. Since we've gone to HDMI-capable conference room projectors they work great as PowerPoint, etc. hosts too. Much less clunky than lugging a laptop and power supply and misc cables around.

This is where your Apple and Android units fail in a Windows shop.

[baja_yu]

I like gadgets, much like any male member of the human race, and as developer probably more than an average person. Even buying a new dishwasher is a thrill. As I've mentioned before I have an iPhone 4 and an iPad 2 that I bought purely because I need them for development. In the first week they were amazing, great, excellent. But the thrill has now passed and they just sit on the table waiting to be plugged in to run latest tests in Xcode. So not much use after that, making it a novelty item. I got the new Kindle a week ago (the one with the the D pad, not touch). Not a lot to look at and play with, gets 'old' in a day but it's something that gets a lot of use.

[Hack]

On the plus side they can be derned useful in a meeting for a quick stab at the interweb to look something up or grab a file you need from the LAN.

Thank you sir...I believe I will pass this along to my daughter. Who knows...she may yet get some practical use out of her tablet.

[oceanebelle]

Between my PC, android phone and Kindle 3, I find that most, if not all my needs have been provided for. When the iPad came out, I thought 'hmmm, I should be able to find some good use for it', something to justify buying one. As it turned out, it was just one of those days where a gadget is so popular the weak hearted can be compelled to get one. Who can resist a constant barrage of advertisement from TV, to the internet and on the train, not to mention all the iPad related office talk to which I can't relate, but the strictly rational and level headed ones and quite possibly the misers among us?
After about a month of holding back and holding onto dear money, the novelty wore off and a sudden rush of realization dawned on me. I'd hate the iPad (and other tablets) for a couple of reasons; first I can't stand bright shiny screens for long, a subscription for movies and tv would be a total waste, I don't have patience for touch screens, I am a clutz and would probably lose or worse break the thing in a week.
So to me everything that the iPad promised to be -a powerhouse mobile entertainment gadget- is not justified. I do applaud the intelligent marketing executives out there for making it feel like it is.

[Icyculyr]

You'd watch movies on it???

One thing that has long baffled me has been the portable TVs. Now, I don't have one, nor do I have any other kind of TV, but I do watch TV. The only justification that I can see for watching TV or movies on a tiny screen is because you can't watch them on a bigger screen. I can see that watching a movie on a tablet would be superior to watching one on a smartphone, but both suck, one just sucks a little bit less than the other.

We should be demanding better screens. Wearable screens. I don't want to have a four inch screen, or a nine inch screen, I want a portable device with a 200 inch screen, and the only way to do that is to come up with a wearable screen. I'm amazed that they are so bad, still. The advantages, especially in this mobile age, are too obvious to pass up. The first eyeglass screens I saw were in the mid-90s/ They weren't really useable back then, and the current ones don't seem to be any better.

There's one other reason (at least for me) to watch a movie on a slate, and that's because the PPI is so much higher than on your HDTV. I'd dig watching 1080p Star Trek on a 9.7" screen. (Not all the time, of course.)

[honeybee]

I hear the iPad 3 comes with induction heating and you can use it to cook food? That would be a great replacement for my kitchen top.

.

[abhijit]

I got the Kindle Fire last night. So far I have downloaded books and some comics from Comixology. I can listen to the radio while I am reading books. I can however have a lot more books on one device so that they take up less space.

[Shaggy Hiker]

There's one other reason (at least for me) to watch a movie on a slate, and that's because the PPI is so much higher than on your HDTV. I'd dig watching 1080p Star Trek on a 9.7" screen. (Not all the time, of course.)

That may be, but I wouldn't know. Since I have never had a TV, I'm not actually sure what 1080p means. My understanding is that even the HDTV resolution isn't as good as my high end monitor, so is the PPI on a slate better than on a 24" computer monitor? I could see that it might be better than on a 32" monitor, since video modes seem to have maxed out at 1900x1200 for the time being.

[Hack]

Since I have never had a TV

So, where do you get your unfounded allegations, half truths and panic mongering rumors?

[techgnome]

From the bears... they speak the trout, the whole trout and nothing but the trout.

I get mine from the squirrels...

-tg

[Hack]

You didn't finish...I've always been taught that it was:

"they speak the trout, the whole trout and nothing but the trout so help me carp."

[RobDog888]

Also, and this just seems ridiculous to me, I prefer using a tablet over a laptop for extended use because I don't feel like I just microwaved my crotch when I'm finished. Plus they're lighter than the laptops so that makes extended use a lot easier to bear as well.

Not only agree but to add to that point, you dont go sterile from boiling your fishies lol

[Shaggy Hiker]

So, where do you get your unfounded allegations, half truths and panic mongering rumors?

Why even ask?!?!? I live in Idaho! Suggesting I need TV for things like that is like suggesting a fish buy bottled water.

[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.

[dilettante]

That may be, but I wouldn't know. Since I have never had a TV, I'm not actually sure what 1080p means. My understanding is that even the HDTV resolution isn't as good as my high end monitor, so is the PPI on a slate better than on a 24" computer monitor? I could see that it might be better than on a 32" monitor, since video modes seem to have maxed out at 1900x1200 for the time being.

1080p is 1080 progressively scanned (not interlaced) lines, usually assumed to be 16:9 ratio, a resolution of 1920 pixels wide by 1080 high.

[Icyculyr]

That may be, but I wouldn't know. Since I have never had a TV, I'm not actually sure what 1080p means. My understanding is that even the HDTV resolution isn't as good as my high end monitor, so is the PPI on a slate better than on a 24" computer monitor? I could see that it might be better than on a 32" monitor, since video modes seem to have maxed out at 1900x1200 for the time being.

As said above, 1080p is 1920x1080.

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.

[FunkyDexter]

Part of the problem may be cost/benefit.

Bingo, not just part but all of the problem.

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.

[Shaggy Hiker]

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.

[Icyculyr]

Bingo, not just part but all of the problem.

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.

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.

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.

[dilettante]

There are already a few 2160p (Quad HD) televisions.

[honeybee]

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.

.

[Icyculyr]

There are already a few 2160p (Quad HD) televisions.

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.

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.

.

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.

[dilettante]

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.

[Icyculyr]

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.)

[FunkyDexter]

The next step is high PPI monitors, in fact I believe Balmer even said to expect 250 PPI monitors soon

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.

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) 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.

[baja_yu]

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.

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) 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.

[kleinma]

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.

[honeybee]

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.

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?

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.

.

[Icyculyr]

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.

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) 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.

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.)

It's really PC monitors that I want to see this high resolution stuff on, gaming would be amazing.

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?

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.
.

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.

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.

[dilettante]

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.

[honeybee]

It's not about seeing the sweat on his forehead, it's about seeing amazingly high resolution content.

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?

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?

.