Back to Article

  • ET - Monday, June 03, 2013 - link

    According to The Verge the W3 weighs 1.1 pounds. I think it's a worthwhile data point to include.

    Also hands on reports on various sites say that the screen is crap. I hope they change it to IPS for release. With even tablets under $150 coming with 1280x800 IPS screens, I can't understand using anything lesser.
  • Braumin - Monday, June 03, 2013 - link

    Also for Snap to work, it needs to be at least 1366 wide... seems like Acer forgot this. Maybe Windows 8 Blue will change that requirement though since it offers a different (and better) snap anyway. Reply
  • arnavvdesai - Monday, June 03, 2013 - link

    Actually with Windows 8.1 that requirement has been dropped to 1280x768 and Snap works with variable %age scaling i.e. not just 1/3 or 50% like before. Reply
  • guidryp - Monday, June 03, 2013 - link

    While I would never accept anything less than IPS (or equiv) on a tablet, I suspect they are cutting corners because they have to. The Intel processor likely cost a bit more than an ARM and the Windows license certainly cost MUCH more than Android. Reply
  • Klimax - Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - link

    There was report few months back, that OEM license got significant price drop. (Something about 100USD or so) Don't remember if it was ever confirmed. Reply
  • gxtoast - Monday, June 03, 2013 - link

    What's the continuing obsession with over-res'd 13" screens? Seriously, 15" factors outsell 13" factors and these guys aren't bringing out thin and light fifteens.

    Even FHD on a 15" screen is enough to exude quality. Over-res'd screens draw more power and consume higher iGPU cycles. Does this really sell them more product?
  • Homeles - Monday, June 03, 2013 - link

    It's better than the under-res'd screens that we've had to put up with forever. Reply
  • maximumGPU - Monday, June 03, 2013 - link

    let's just agree then that for 13" 1080p is the sweet spot! Reply
  • Winterblade - Monday, June 03, 2013 - link

    The way Windows manages the high DPI panels I have to say that even 1080 at 13" is an overkill. I'm constantly zooming to be able to read web pages without forcing my eyes, also without a dedicated GPU is not going to be possible to play games at native resolution AND to have a decent framerate... In short, it's not that I'm against these new high DPI panels, It's just that I feel that once again OEM's are just selling us specs even if that means to breake the "balanace" of their systems. Reply
  • BMNify - Monday, June 03, 2013 - link

    Yup, that's the crux of the issue with Win32 and the solution is compromise. IPS and proper tuning (color, contrast, etc.) at a modest resolution can result in a quality display that aids the Win32 deficiency while increasing battery life and decreasing BOM.

    Unfortunately, the marketing ass clowns want bullet points (cuz that's all consumers know), engineers want results, and bean counters want beans. Clearly the engineers are being overruled and we get cheap TN or impractical super duper hi-hi-def IPS (that still need tuning). I personally thought that MS got it pretty close to right with the Surface RT screen except that, well no one wants RT.
  • wintermute000 - Monday, June 03, 2013 - link

    Yep i had a 15" with 1080p and even that was too much. I would vote for 1600x900 at 15" or smaller. Changing font size or DPI breaks layouts, not all apps/menus/text etc. are affected. Stupid Windows / lazy developers or reliant on legacy APIs = crap scaling!!!! Reply
  • daviderickson - Monday, June 03, 2013 - link

    Lets not because it is not. 2560 or greater only please. Anyone doing significant development work on a laptop (read not just playing games or surfing facebook) needs those extra pixels, and I'd prefer not to just give Apple my money. Reply
  • BMNify - Monday, June 03, 2013 - link

    Anyone doing "significant development work" on a 11" laptop is insane, no offense. Most prefer a desktop with multiple large monitors. I fear you might be in the ultra-minority here or I don't understand your definition of "significant development work" for which I apologize. Reply
  • ninethirty - Monday, June 03, 2013 - link

    A different part of the industry, perhaps? I haven't worked for or interviewed at a company that issued desktops in at least 10 years. I can't recall hearing anyone I know mention a desktop, either. Every development shop I know of issues a laptop and an external monitor. Sometimes they'll add a personal server, as well, or they may use cloud servers. But a desktop? No way.

    Laptops were fast enough for compiling code years ago, and anything too intense for a laptop happens on a server.
    Perhaps if we were developing games or were rendering video and needed bigger external graphics cards?

    Most of my coworkers prefer either a 15" or 13" laptop, depending on whether they commute and how far. I think I'm a minority -- I prefer an 11' or 12'. I'm going to hook it to external monitors anyway, so I don't really care about the extra 3" of desktop space, but I really like changing locations through the day, so I just assume have the more mobile machine, assuming performance is equal.
  • tuxRoller - Monday, June 03, 2013 - link

    Give me around 230ppi for a lappy and I'm happy.
    I'd love to be able to turn off all antialiasing.
    Better for games, and better for fonts.
    Unfortunately, I don't think any of these screens meets my criteria.
    Waiting for igzo, with its attendant higher ppi and lower power/higher transmission.
  • HisDivineOrder - Monday, June 03, 2013 - link

    You just know that nVidia is giving any OEM willing to ignore GT3e a steal of a deal on low-end discrete GPU's. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now