Friday, 26 April 2013

Just had a bit of a rant on one of the forums while I was looking at what tablets are available.

Why oh why do the manufacturers keep bringing out otherwise great "mobile" devices (tablets, netbooks etc) but insist on not supplying 3G mobility?
Internet marketing 101 ... find a customer need and fill it 
 .... is it so hard to figure out from all the forums what the customers' top wants are, in mobile devices? 

So I too, ... like so many others, ... will continue to wait for (in my case) a
9~10", 3G, brand-name tablet (Nexus, Asus etc), with 128GB or better, 1080p with HDMI, USB Host, 
SD (or microSD) , fast CPU, decent battery run-time, a half-decent camera 
and of-course WiFi and Bluetooth
 .... did I miss anything?
Oh yes ... and while I'm on my wish-list, 
how about a Windows OS that doesn't price the device off the market but does work properly, 
does run real windows apps and doesn't reduce the battery to a molten mass in a few short hours!

Lastly it all needs to be well under the $1,000 mark, preferably heading toward the $600~$800

Read the forum comments and reviews

The closest thing yet (Apr2013) - just WXGA not full HD (1080i not 1080p)

Differences in resolution explained
I like this summary ...
In digital electronics there is a thing called "sample rate conversion". You can think of TV pixels as "samples" of the picture. It is possible to convert from any sample rate to another, both higher and lower than the original. In TV land this is termed "scaling", but it means the same thing. All broadcast TV is either 720p or 1080i. The TV set can display whatever by proper scaling, which is done in the TV set itself. The resolution of the screen is called the "native resolution" of the TV. Anything coming in, no matter what (480i, 480p, 720p or 1080i) must be scaled to the native resolution of the set. However, the information content (resolution) in the result cannot exceed that of the original source. If the native resolution has more samples than the source, the picture will have equal resolution as the source; if it is less, then the display will have less resolution than the source. Since 1366x768 has more samples than 1280x720, that format can be displayed without loss. However, it is not as many samples as 1920x1080, so the set cannot display a 1080i picture at full resolution, When the manufacturer claims 1080i capable, it means the set can ACCEPT 1080i signals, it doesn't mean that they can be displayed at full resolution. Until recently, most sets did not exceed 1280x720 pixels, and some plasmas were as low as 1024x768. None of these could display 1080i without loss of resolution. Even older CRT sets which would scan 1080i on their picture tubes would not actually resolve all the pixels; they weren't as good as the 720p sets that succeeded them. The situation is very confusing and marketing people are taking advantage of this.

No comments: