[RudeCurve]

Originally Posted by zed

now if 16:9 is so great for portrait why arent there many (any) screenshots?
Surely they should be showing off how much better 16:9 is at portrait than 4:3
Gotta emphasize your strengths after all

well I call on my old friend wikipedia (diagram of common book sizes)

heres ratios
1.25
1.26
1.49
1.47
1.68
1.61
1.55
1.52
----
average = 1.48

4:3 = 1.33 0.15 off average
16:10 = 1.6 0.12 off average
16.9 = 1.78 0.30 off average

I conclude WRT books the 16:9 is exactly twice as bad as 4:3 portrait wise

[AlphaWolf]

Originally Posted by zed

now if 16:9 is so great for portrait why arent there many (any) screenshots?
Surely they should be showing off how much better 16:9 is at portrait than 4:3
Gotta emphasize your strengths after all

well I call on my old friend wikipedia (diagram of common book sizes)

heres ratios
1.25
1.26
1.49
1.47
1.68
1.61
1.55
1.52
----
average = 1.48

4:3 = 1.33 0.15 off average
16:10 = 1.6 0.12 off average
16.9 = 1.78 0.30 off average

I conclude WRT books the 16:9 is exactly twice as bad as 4:3 portrait wise

I find it most interesting your post best conforms to a 16:9 portrait display.

[Andrew Lauritzen]

Please, don't post "math" or "logic" like that on Beyond3D. It doesn't make any sense.

Lots of the people in my office run a second 16:9 monitor in portrait mode for coding, etc. Reading/text is one of the strengths (not weaknesses) of that aspect ratio. Why don't you at least criticize something that makes sense, like viewing photos or similar.

[Mariner]

Originally Posted by zed

why not the new ipad, im waiting for one ATM but theyre scare. you know you can update the OS, Ive got an android tablet here (2.2 I think, piece of crap, someone gave it too me, only used it once, cant update the OS, which is made for a phone not a tablet )
or if youre trying to save some cash the new android from google, Im pretty sure they will update the OS at least for the next couple of years, excellant machine for the price, Im tempted myself 7" nice size

Why a Chinese Android tablet (Aoson M11) and not an iPad? Numerous reasons:

1. I'm not exactly a fan of Apple's business practices and the way they are using some preposterous patents to stifle their competition sticks in my craw to an extent.

2. I'm quite invested in Android as I enjoy tinkering around with my Android phone. I'm not sure if any custom ROMs will make their way across onto this new tablet I've ordered, but it comes with a stable version of ICS 4.0 which is good and I'm hopeful of a future upgrade to Jellybean.

3. The iPad doesn't have the capabilities I require - SD card extension and HDMI output. The Aoson M11 I have ordered supports these, in addition to 16GB of internal memory. Add a 32GB SD card and I'll have access for 48 GB of storage straight away. The physical dimensions and resolution of the device are pretty much the same as the iPad 2, including an IPS screen. The HDMI output is important as I plan to take it on hoiday with me to use as a video player, plugging into TVs.

4. The Aoson M11 is a good bit faster than the iPad 2 - Dual-core A9 running at 1.6GHz. The iPad 2 GPU is more powerful but the Rockchip RK3066 in the Aoson does include a quad-core Mali so it's no slouch itself.

5. Drumroll.... Price! Yep, this is one of the main factors. I've paid under £150 (including shipping by DHL) for this device. I'm hoping to be able to avoid import duty and VAT, but even if I do get hit by this, I'll be paying less than two thirds of the amount I'd have to shell out for an iPad 2 and half the cost of an iPad 3.

Downsides are that battery life won't be as good as the iPads - apparently, you can get around 8 hours typical usage whereas I understand the iPads last a bit longer. No GPS built-in, either and no SIM for mobile data. This isn't much of a problem, however, as I can always tether my phone to provide mobile data.

I'll post a review of the device on here, providing it arrives safely and works correctly! Payment for it is in escrow so I ought to be able to get my money back in the event of a problematic device.

[Xmas]

Originally Posted by wco81

What are the aspect ratios of Kindle, Nook and other popular readers?

6", 800x600 (4:3) is currently the most common e-ink format.

Originally Posted by Andrew Lauritzen

Lots of the people in my office run a second 16:9 monitor in portrait mode for coding, etc. Reading/text is one of the strengths (not weaknesses) of that aspect ratio. Why don't you at least criticize something that makes sense, like viewing photos or similar.

I use a second monitor in portrait mode both at home and at work. At work the portrait monitor is 24", 16:9, 1080p, at home it's 20", 16:10, 1680x1050. (The other monitor is 24"/23", 16:9, 1080p in both cases)

While portrait orientation is great for reading, I'm not convinced the extra height provided by the larger 16:9/9:16 screen is that useful. I'd rather have something like 1200x1728 (~9:13, just to compare identical area/number of pixels to 1080p). Mainly I use the portrait monitor for documentation and browsing, and in both cases that involves side bars for navigation (I use the Tree Style Tab add-on for Firefox) so I could do with a bit more width.

I still do most coding on the landscape monitor, with two editor panes side by side.

[Andrew Lauritzen]

Well to be fair, given how close 16:10 is to the golden ratio, it's kind of stupid that 16:9 has "won" 16:10 is nearly perfect in my opinion and I'll continue to use that ratio for my monitors until I'm unable to purchase one.

[Mize]

Originally Posted by Andrew Lauritzen

Well to be fair, given how close 16:10 is to the golden ratio, it's kind of stupid that 16:9 has "won" 16:10 is nearly perfect in my opinion and I'll continue to use that ratio for my monitors until I'm unable to purchase one.

Agreed especially for landscape. computing on 16:10 (1920x1200) in portrait, however, feels constrained.

[bkilian]

Originally Posted by Andrew Lauritzen

Well to be fair, given how close 16:10 is to the golden ratio, it's kind of stupid that 16:9 has "won" 16:10 is nearly perfect in my opinion and I'll continue to use that ratio for my monitors until I'm unable to purchase one.

16:9 is a compromise, like the 53 byte packets in ATM. It's around mid way between the old style TV/movies, and the widest new style movies. so you can watch both with a minimal amount of screen wastage.

Bob Morris explained that the 16:9 ratio was chosen as being the geometric mean of 4:3, Academy ratio, and 2.4:1, the widest cinema format in common use, in order to minimize wasted screen space when displaying content with a variety of aspect ratios

Of course, now it's been adopted for all new TV content.

[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by Xmas

6", 800x600 (4:3) is currently the most common e-ink format.

And this IMO, is by far the best for "book" and PDF viewing.

[/quote]I use a second monitor in portrait mode both at home and at work. At work the portrait monitor is 24", 16:9, 1080p, at home it's 20", 16:10, 1680x1050. (The other monitor is 24"/23", 16:9, 1080p in both cases)

While portrait orientation is great for reading, I'm not convinced the extra height provided by the larger 16:9/9:16 screen is that useful.[/QUOTE]

Same here, except I actually have a 24" 16:10 monitor on one side and a 20" 4:3 monitor on the other side of my 30" main screen monitor.

And the 20" monitor is by far the most comfortable to use for document viewing and editing. The 24" monitor is somewhat useful once I put my task bar at the top of it and then expanded the task bar to take up 5 rows of icons. It's a bit ugly, but it's useful to not have each tile get squeezed much when I have a lot of applications/folders open. And that way I don't feel like I have too much extra space.

My slate, however, at 16:9 is absolutely horrible in portrait mode. And hence one of the reasons I rarely use it anymore. Perhaps Win8 will make me want to do more in landscape as opposed to portrait, but I have a feeling that I'm still going to prefer a 4:3 or at the very least a 16:10 screen for a slate/tablet. The 1366x768 screen doesn't help much as 768 is far too few pixels across when in portrait mode. Perhaps the 1080p of the x86 MS Surface will make 16:9 not as horrible, but I have a feeling I'm still going to feel horribly constrained when in portrait orientation on that device.

Regards,
SB

[zed]

16:9 is a compromise, like the 53 byte packets in ATM. It's around mid way between the old style TV/movies, and the widest new style movies. so you can watch both with a minimal amount of screen wastage.

well 25% wastage for a 2.35:1 film
but anyways this is all moot, perhaps its the bets compromise for watching films but and heres the rub
FOR NEARLY EVERYTHING ELSE apart from watching tv its sucks, films are what ~10% of what ppl use their PC's for. Hell some of the 16:9 supporters here have said they program/websurf on a portrait 16:9/10 monitor i.e. they admit theres not enuf pixels lanscape wise, this is all well and good if you could press a button on the screen would rotate when you're browsing the web & then again if you want to view a film but on mine rotating the monitor is a PITA, not something I want to do 10x a day (dual monitors, like I have, is a solution though less than optimal) as it stands for usual PC usage 16:12 is prolly the best ratio

@Mariner
1. I agree, I feel the same way if it wasnt for the fact Im working on IOS software ATM I'ld be using windows, also I believe windows is a better OS
80% things better win vs 20% mac, the mac is improving it used to be ~90-10. Getting rid of mac finder would go a long way to fixing the OS.

2. you know with the Aoson M11 the OS will never get upgraded well 90+% sure it wont officially, contrast this with IOS when things get upgraded for at least 3-4 years

3. Apple Digital AV Adapter (true extra cash)

4. I dont know about this, you'ld have to check benchmarks from memory I think the ipad smokes all the rest

5. true, though Im surprised the new ipad is so cheap eg here in nz its about the same/cheaper than similar competition & its got a much better screen/performance etc, pity they dont make a 7" one but steve in his wisdom declared 7" is too small (just like 3.5" is perfect)

[Malo]

Would anyone actually prefer playing games on a 4:3 compared to 16:9/16:10?

[AlphaWolf]

Originally Posted by Malo

Would anyone actually prefer playing games on a 4:3 compared to 16:9/16:10?

That would depend entirely on which game and how it was made. Wide aspect conforms best (certainly better than 4:3) to normal human FoV, but that doesn't mean a game was designed to use it.

[tuna]

Originally Posted by bkilian

Also, I'm typing this on my PC, which has a 16x9 24" monitor in portrait mode on it. A lot of programmers do that, since it gives a vastly superior view for programming or reading any long-form text, like... say... websites.

Do you have enough space to put buffers next to each other if you are programming in portrait mode?

[zed]

yes as AlphaWolf saiz it depends on game
the 2 games Im working on ATM are better 16:12 than something lesser (10 or 9), in fact 16:16 would even be better

but my first IOS game
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/vampi...519606069?mt=8
doesnt really make much difference, if you have 16:9/10 you just see less sky/ground

also I'll note in the old days a lot of arcade games were in portrait

[bkilian]

Originally Posted by tuna

Do you have enough space to put buffers next to each other if you are programming in portrait mode?

nope, that's what the other monitor is for. Although I'm now down to two landscape monitors, since my other one died a couple of days ago.

[Squilliam]

Originally Posted by bkilian

nope, that's what the other monitor is for. Although I'm now down to two landscape monitors, since my other one died a couple of days ago.

As America rushes off to work, bkilian waits. As we check our watches to see if it's time for lunch, bkilian waits. As we gripe about the cost of IT equipment, bkilian waits. As we watch news footage of Microsoft employees by the thousands forced to use slow obsolete hardware whilst Steve's Pet shop down the street gets by on the latest core i7 processors, bkilian waits.

For just $1.20 a day you can sponsor a Microsoft employee to have the latest hardware so they don't have to wait anymore.

[bkilian]

Originally Posted by Squilliam

As America rushes off to work, bkilian waits. As we check our watches to see if it's time for lunch, bkilian waits. As we gripe about the cost of IT equipment, bkilian waits. As we watch news footage of Microsoft employees by the thousands forced to use slow obsolete hardware whilst Steve's Pet shop down the street gets by on the latest core i7 processors, bkilian waits.

For just $1.20 a day you can sponsor a Microsoft employee to have the latest hardware so they don't have to wait anymore.

Hehe. Nice. No, I don't need any sponsors, it's just my new monitor doesn't rotate.

[Arwin]

I prefer two landscape monitors, assuming they are big enough. My field of view works like that, and if I find I'm writing functions that benefit from more horizontal space, I've already lost.

Heck, if resolution proves a little (1620x1050 currently), one screen could be enough.

[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by zed

also I'll note in the old days a lot of arcade games were in portrait

Many home ports of modern arcade games support the TATE mode, which allows the player to rotate the display so the playing field is viewed vertically.

[idsn6]

This is a slide from an internal Samsung document addressing reasons for returns of the Galaxy Tab.

[zed]

Nice find. Ouch that is pretty damming (& supports what Ive been saying),
they admit except for movie viewing 4:3 is better
So why did they go for 16:10
Im guessing to differentiate from the ipad, and who suffers? the customers.
Look where MS is going with the surface 16:9! Im guessing to even further differentiate from the ipad. Will noone think of the customers.

OT - Apple is prolly the worse infringers on this, eg in the mac os theres so many things in windows/linux which are better but its like apple wont add them cause they dont want to appear like theyre copying, eventually they do add them years later by stealth.

eg some famous examples
-right mouse button
-maximize window button
-enter key to press a button
-border resize on all borders
etc

[I.S.T.]

To be honest, I'd prefer a 16:10 or 16:9 ratio myself simply to make TV and movie viewing easier if I had a tablet.

Who is to say what customers prefer unless you poll them? That document does not appear to have done that, so we cannot say either way.

[zed]

Ive spoken about watching video before, so wont repeat what I said
couldnt really find any real good data (except this) about what ppl do on a tablet

shocked 12% watch video though (higher than I thought, I guessed perhaps 5%)
But anyways its only a minor thing, honestly is anyone surprised by this, you watch video/tv on a tv thats what gives you the best experience. the ipad is actually quite heavy (grrr metal) holding it on your lap for 90mins to watch a film

heres another survey, this is what I think happens most often, ppl use it on the couch


now if someone can give some actual evidence that a large number of ppl watch video on a tablet I perhaps will change my mind, but as it stands now its a minor feature

[AlphaWolf]

Perhaps they use a stand (convertible cover) instead of holding it...and watching TV and watching video at the same time (your second survey) seems unlikely doesn't it?

I don't watch a lot of movies on my PlayBook but I view quite a lot of video (YouTube etc).

[idsn6]

Originally Posted by I.S.T.

Who is to say what customers prefer unless you poll them? That document does not appear to have done that, so we cannot say either way.

The "VOC" label on the slides stands for "voice of the customer". The report is the result of surveys and interviews with customers and store employees.