POST A COMMENT

31 Comments

Back to Article

  • dagamer34 - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    HP is so cheap, they couldn't even spring for the 1366x768 panel to allow snapping of Metro apps to the side. WTF? Reply
  • jeremyshaw - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    Also, why not a 1440x900 panel, mantaining a better (IMO) 16:10 ratio, while giving more than ample room for metro snapping. The ipad has a 2048x1536 panel. With nearly full sRGB and IPS. Pretty much all other top tier android tablets are running 1920x1*** at this point, and most on a variant of IPS, too. There is no excuse for cheaping out on the panel (whatever marketing or engineering excuse there is... is irrelevent, given the established competition has much better panels in numbers, already). Reply
  • fteoath64 - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    Well said. 1440 X 900 would really make it stand out even though it is on the low-end of the Win8 Tablets compared to the Pro tablet which sports 1920X1080 resolutions. The area difference between 1280X800 vs 1366X768 is not as great as 1440X900 compared to 1280X800. Yeah, more Metro snapping just a notch below the Pro resolution making it a small step over the standard Android 10 incher!. Reply
  • andykins - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    Perhaps the GPU and/or drivers of said GPU are terrible and can't handle high resolution displays. That'd be my guess anyway. Reply
  • B3an - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    No. It has a Intel Z2760 SoC and theres loads of other tablets with this that run at higher res. And this is 2012, pretty much anything can do 1366x768 no problem. This is just HP being their using shitty self. I'm glad MS made the Surface being as so many PC makers are totally incapable of making anything good. Reply
  • EnzoFX - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    I think he said 1366x768 because that's the res MS supports. IIRC their control is gonna be tight. Their support for the snapping may be restricted to the res they specify? I'm sort of piecing together from things I've barely skimmed lol. I could be wrong. Reply
  • Spivonious - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    You need at least 1366 pixels horizontally to snap. That is the only requirement.

    The 1280x800 panel on this tablet makes absolutely no sense.
    Reply
  • lilmoe - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    I bet those Clover Trail SoCs cannot handle that high of a resolution and maintain fluid performance. We might see those high resolution Atom tablets when Saltwell core Atoms (with Intel 2500/4000 iGPU) are ready to ship.

    Microsoft is having a tight hand on ARM and x86 tablets, they want the experience to be fast and fluid without any hiccups or problems. It's a good start. But I do agree, 1366x768 should make more sense for clarity and Windows 8 functionality. Don't know why HP chose that resolution.

    For now, higher resolutions can only be found on IvyBridge based Windows 8 Pro tablets (like Surface Pro). At least that's the plan for launch later next month and early 2013.
    Reply
  • Penti - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    Shouldn't be much difference between 1366x768/1280x800 and 1440x900 here. The devices support 1080 output over HDMI. Windows desktop aren't exactly hard to drive, Metro has virtually no effects of any kind so. This is btw a Windows 8 Pro 2013 release unit. IvyBridge supports resolutions above 1920x1200 though. Not like it's a good fit for Windows to have higher in that size though. Although it is supported. GPU/drivers can always rescale stuff like games. Stuff needs to work nicely in the desktop also though, here the desktop and Metro will scale in to different ways kinda. Basically the scaling in Metro is 100%, 140% or 180%. The default scaling in the desktop doesn't match this. Reply
  • ssj4Gogeta - Tuesday, October 02, 2012 - link

    1366*768 has only 2.45% more pixels than 1280*800. Besides, any GPU these days can handle that res just fine for the desktop. Reply
  • Pneumothorax - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    HP now reminds me of American car companies in the 80's-90's: Always missing a feature and a year late! Reply
  • tuxRoller - Tuesday, October 02, 2012 - link

    I would guess that the reason they aren't making this premium is b/c the market hasn't been established yet. They want to see if there is any interest first. Reply
  • Impulses - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    Nice Cake reference on the headline Dustin, I for one chuckled. Reply
  • gmkmay - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    Have not yet read this yet, but the title alone made me have to post. Just great. Reply
  • rscoot - Thursday, October 04, 2012 - link

    Gotta say though Intel Atom doesn't exactly inspire the greatest confidence to fidelity towards the "mind like a diamond" line though and with HP's reputation for reliability, I'm not sure if they "know what's best". Reply
  • damianrobertjones - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    "(let alone the staggeringly high resolution of the current generation Apple iPad)" - Which uses massive DPI scaling so you're not really benefiting from such a high res Reply
  • repoman27 - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    Are you talking about the MacBook Pro with Retina Display or the iPad? What gets scaled on the iPad, besides things that don't supply high resolution assets?

    Anywho, text is always rendered at full resolution and that is of tremendous benefit, especially for non-Roman languages.
    Reply
  • Spoony - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    I find that the very sharp text and imagery is fantastic on the iPad (3). If that counts as not really benefiting, you'll have to clue me in on what actually benefiting looks like.

    In fact screens of sub-150 ppi look quite fuzzy and unpleasant anymore. Some of the less refined Pentile stuff is quite visible as well.
    Reply
  • melgross - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    Some games are scales, but that's it. Everything else is at native resolution. Reply
  • damianrobertjones - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    This tablet shows why MS presented the minimum specs to all interested parties otherwise, as you can tell, they'd just make absolute rubbish. Reply
  • hstukenborg - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    I haven't read the article yet, but anyone using a Cake reference is ok in my book. Reply
  • ImSpartacus - Saturday, October 06, 2012 - link

    Yeah, I thought that was at least a little witty. Reply
  • p05esto - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    I don't like the high resolution tablets at all. Have you surfed the web on them? The tiny little web site in the center is annoying. I'll take 1280 or even lower all day long.

    Everyone has an opinion. I say offer two options!
    Reply
  • melgross - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    Don't know what tablet you're using, but I never have that problem. What sites are you specifically talking about? Reply
  • p05esto - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    Basically every site on the internet. All web sites are pretty much designed for 1024x768. If the iPad is "scaling" the site to 2/3 times it's intended resolution you are missing the WHOLE point to high resolution and if anything you are seeing a fuzzy and less than ideal experience.

    This is fact by the way. What is opinion is how it looks when scaled so high, that is in the eye of the beholder (I don't care for it is what I'm saying).
    Reply
  • p05esto - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    Should have attached this link:

    Are high-resolution displays screwing up the Web?
    http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/are-high-re...
    Reply
  • B3an - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    You're argument is stupid. Higher resolution is always better, and you can simply zoom in on web pages that are too small. If you have something like iPad 3 res then even when it zoomed in you still have a sharper image than a 1280x800 res display, because the pixels are so much smaller and closer together. Yes images will look a bit blurred compared to the default 100% size, but they will still look shaper than a much lower res diplay. And text will always look MUCH better at any zoom level.

    Btw LOADS of sites are not designed for 1024x768 anymore and haven't been for many years. Even Anandtech is 1100 pixels wide. Most sites aim to keep the horizontal width under 1280 pixels these days. I do this all the time, i'm a web designer myself. And pretty much no one designs a site with with 768 pixels height in mind... for the simply fact that you just scroll down if the layout exceeds this height, which it does on 99% of sites. Again including this site.
    Reply
  • Sufo - Tuesday, October 02, 2012 - link

    I really like high res displays - I hope that the push in the handheld market pushes similar changes in the desktop market, however, say what you want, but unless a site is coded to swap in high res assets for an ipad 3, all images and icons look like blurry turds. There is no way around this, it's just a fact, and it affects the vast majority of websites. Reply
  • Impulses - Tuesday, October 02, 2012 - link

    That's dumb, zoom and/or re arrange your windows, problem solved. Equating web surfing on a high res display (highly dynamic, are constantly being redesigned) with watching a VHS on an HDTV is not a good analogy, despite many of the same fundamentals being in place. Reply
  • zappb - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    Now shipping with windows funball 8 bundled with free angry birds!!!!! Reply
  • twtech - Monday, October 01, 2012 - link

    A joystick or two and a few buttons on the side. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now