Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27
  1.    #1  
    Why did HPalm decide to go 4:3 aspect ratio at 1024x768? Because that's what the ipad has? I personally find it annoying. I keep thinking about old tube TVs. Why not a more "modern" 16:9 or 16:10 ratio that would make the difference between landscape and portrait more profound? All the android tablets are in the latter category. A 4:3 means you get bigger black bars when watching a movie and turning the pad on its side or upright isn't as meaningful. I like the aspect on my Galaxy Tab a lot. Is there a particular reason, say cards view and stacks work better in a more square working space than a rectangular one?
  2. #2  
    Not sure what their reasoning was when deciding on this, though I suspect you're right that HP had the iPad in mind when they designed the hardware.

    For my part, I prefer the iPad form factor to that of say, the XOOM, as it's less awkward to hold in portrait.
    webOS user since 20090606.
  3. #3  
    I think the only reason is ease of porting IPhone apps, kind of sucks they didnt keep the resolution of pre-3 same as iPhone-4
    If this helped you hit thanks.
  4. #4  
    Because you can use it to read the whole sheet of paper without scrolling.
    Because you can see your photo without scrolling
    It's a *computer*, not a glorified video player.
  5. #5  
    From my experimenting with various tablets I think 4:3 is better suited for them. Since you can operate them from either orientation I don't like how much 16:9 favors landscape at the expense of portrait view.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by VCI_Cell View Post
    For my part, I prefer the iPad form factor to that of say, the XOOM, as it's less awkward to hold in portrait.
    The Xoom is definitely awkward to hold in portrait view. Even in landscape, I prefer the Touchpad (iPad) dimensions. It just feels better.


    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
    PSN: StuntmanMark
    Twitter: @StuntmanMark


    The Name: http://is.gd/nxnbhK
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by FenrirWolf View Post
    From my experimenting with various tablets I think 4:3 is better suited for them. Since you can operate them from either orientation I don't like how much 16:9 favors landscape at the expense of portrait view.
    Agreed! The 8.9" widescreen HP Slate is extremely 'width challenged' in portrait configuration. The 16:9 screen is better suited for a laptop or netbook that gets used in landscape all its life. If there is a chance that the device will get used in portrait for web pages, ebooks, or digital magazines then 4:3 is prefered.
  8. #8  
    remember when mac users bought pivot displays that were used vertically so that desktop publishing and word processing could be done on a display thzt looks like a full piece pf paper. Thats also why a Kindle is oriented that way.
  9. #9  
    The traditional piece of printer paper dimensions will always rule because that is what all data mediums are created on. Whether it be books, documents, spreadsheets, or anything else it will be much smoother with the TouchPad's screen. The only thing there is to loose as you have noted is video playing but, you have a lot more to loose if you don't have it.
    Last edited by Rennat; 06/13/2011 at 09:07 AM.
    "Life is Hard... it's harder if your stupid"
    - John Wayne
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by laoh View Post
    Why did HPalm decide to go 4:3 aspect ratio at 1024x768? Because that's what the ipad has?
    I could be wrong but I was under the impression that HP went with that aspect ratio because that is the only ratio the flat touchscreens are available in.
  11.    #11  
    I understand what many of you are saying about easier to hold a 4:3 tablet in portrait and such but for browsing web pages and documents, don't you think more vertical space is better?

    The irony for me is that I *hate* how the current laptops followed the trend and went widescree, with most screens now being 1366x768. Laptops from just a few years back had standard def of 1280x800 (although my personal one is 1440x900). So to give us wider screen (for movies), they shaved off valuable vertical space. I don't know a laptop that has pivot so it's too much sacrifice for me there.

    However, with tablets, you're free to choose landscape or portrait at the flick of your wrist. For portrait viewing, I'd think more vertical space means better... no?
  12. aapold's Avatar
    Posts
    292 Posts
    Global Posts
    835 Global Posts
    #12  
    I prefer 4:3 for just about everything. I hate widescreen even in TVs. I had to replace some monitors and had some users griping they were not "widescreen". I told them these are "tallscreen".

    Given same total height and width, 4:3 gives you more area than 16:9... and this is also true for diagonal. a 14" 4:3 has more area than a 14" 16:9. and so on.

    Yeah, I guess its true a 1:1 would be even more efficient, and the ultimate would be a perfectly round screen but that's not gonna happen.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by laoh View Post
    I understand what many of you are saying about easier to hold a 4:3 tablet in portrait and such but for browsing web pages and documents, don't you think more vertical space is better?

    The irony for me is that I *hate* how the current laptops followed the trend and went widescree, with most screens now being 1366x768. Laptops from just a few years back had standard def of 1280x800 (although my personal one is 1440x900). So to give us wider screen (for movies), they shaved off valuable vertical space. I don't know a laptop that has pivot so it's too much sacrifice for me there.

    However, with tablets, you're free to choose landscape or portrait at the flick of your wrist. For portrait viewing, I'd think more vertical space means better... no?
    Unless you routinely work with Legal Paper sized document formats the extra vertical space on a 16:9 screen held in portrait mode is wasted space. Either you zoom to the length (and have text spill off the sides with standard 8.5x11 paper formats) or you zoom to the width and you have unused space at the bottom. With 4:3 the option is there to zoom to width and have length match up.
  14. #14  
    For my money the 16:10 aspect ratio of the androids is preferred over 4:3 ratio of the ipad. It’s pretty obvious that the TP was set up as it is to mimic the ipad in most every way. I’m sure they want to ride the ipad’s coattails as much as possible, but it is unfortunate that they choose to copy the outdated 1024x768 resolution. As for benefiting from easy porting of ipad apps, yes that is true, but it still causes problems with developers looking to move those apps to their new 16:9.5ish aspect ratio Pre3 (although it lends similarity to the tiny Veer.)

    The 4:3 ratio was a holdover relic from the CRT days where being as close to equal in height and width was desired to minimize display cost and complexity. Not because it is necessarily desirable or “optimized” for users.

    As for 4:3 being easier to hold in portrait, I don’t understand why this would be. In my usage, I find the 16:10 ratio easier to hold and use in portrait orientation. Not only is it ideal for most every webpage (which is almost always much longer than it is wide) but it allows for more on screen when the virtual keyboard is up and the relatively “skinnier” screen when in portrait makes it easier to thumb type and still reach the center of the screen. When using/typing on a tablet while holding it, I always prefer to hold it in portrait and in doing so, I feel the 16:10 is a benefit over 4:3, not a detriment. YMMV of course.

    Movies/shows are pretty self explanatory. They’ve all moved to 16:9. A 16:10 screen allows for full screen viewing (with space for the utility/notification bar) If you plan to watch media, this pretty much talks for itself. The notification bar on Honeycomb is 80 pixels high. This gives you a 1280x720 screen in landscape for watching high def content.

    For multi-paned apps (namely email) having a wider display allows you to have the body of the email and the inbox available on screen at the same time, but still offer enough width to read the body with decent formatting, and have enough space to actually make out people’s email addresses.

    Finally, as for the notion of using 4:3 for documents. You might find that a large majority of documents use the popular 1 ¼” side margins with 1” top/bottom. When holding a Honeycomb tablet in portrait, the notification bar on the bottom makes the usable screen space 1200x800, which is exactly the aspect ratio of usable space on a single page document that has those popular margin spacings.

    HP chose the low res 4:3 format to copy the ipad. A person can cheer that it may mean easier/faster ports of apps. But I don’t think there is much to cheer about beyond that.

    -Suntan
  15. #15  
    Let us go back a bit farther as to why 4:3. That, was where film started, and computers went along for years, until the movie industry decided that its goers needed excercize and created wide screen so you would bob back and forth like in tennis. Besides they all sell something perfectly good out to sell something new to make money.

    It is important to consider what you are going to use the Touchpad for. I have two laptops, one soon to go, and the one I prefer is the one with greater vertical resolution. If you are only watching movies, then wide/super wide is a better choice.

    But....
    I do not think that the tablets in general are primarily for movie watching. I plan to use mine around the house for email, reading, browsing, and looking for movies that I will watch on my 65". Yes, occasionally, it will show a movie or tv, but that is not its purpose.

    Yes, if HP copied Apple on 4:3, it is because both Apple and HP saw it was the best of a lot of worlds. And it may have helped that it was a properly priced technology already in stream. Sorry for pun.

    Tablets in general are a supplement device to desktops as are laptops, which are movable desktop replacements. Tablets are casual, much more portable, and will serve many new purposes. Recipies in the kitchen, manuals under your car, relaxation in the doctors office who has no new magazines, quick email and sync, showing a slide show of your grandchild, reading emails while you are away on business and a laptop is a heavy pain on the plane. You will always do far more with a big screen TV or computer than a tablet, that is until the next device comes along. But a tablet has a real purpose.
    And 4:3 is perfect at this time.

    I am waiting for wrap around glasses with imax [d^mn I dislike that i] and octophonic sound with a transponder on my spine for movies. Meanwhile, I plan to make great use of my 4:3 Touchpad.

    Over analyzing technology, especially with prejudices, makes you forget that new money is a major driving force, and technology is rushed out to sell the need, not to fill the need.
  16. #16  
    In 2001, Compaq launched the TC1000 TabletPC (remember Bill Gates waiving it around on stage at the 2001 CES show? Maybe not...). It was a 10.4" 4:3 slate device that was specifically designed to operate in portrait mode. HP later bought Compaq and improved on the TC by launching the TC1100 (one is sitting in front of me still in daily use). It was also 4:3 ratio and adopted the now famous Wacom active digitizer.

    Laptops and Netbooks adopted 16:9 because they are used in landscape mode 100% of the time. Trying to use a 16:9 tablet in portrait is very challenging. 16:10 is now available and being used and that is good but it is still not as good as 4:3 (16:12).

    When Apple designed the 'device that cannot be named' they chose 4:3 because, as a benchmark, it is the best in portrait and the 'device that cannot be named', like the HP TC1100, is specifically designed to operate in portrait.

    Now think about those dates...2001 for Cpmpaq, 2003 for HP. So the 'device that cannot be named' invented 4:3 and portrait mode? I don't think so. HP did it first! The Touchpad is following in the footsteps of HP's own history and is not copying anything Apple. It is, in fact, Apple that is likely to have copied HP...
    Last edited by dceggert; 06/14/2011 at 08:04 AM.
    regards,

    Dan

    ------------------
    TabletPC user
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by dceggert View Post
    Trying to use a 16:9 tablet in portrait is very challenging. 16:10 is now available and being used and that is good but it is still not as good as 4:3
    Having used both 4:3 and 16:10 tablets I fail to see where the challenge is, or where the 4:3 superiority is.

    If a person prefers 4:3, that’s fine. But to say universally that it is the ideal aspect for a tablet is silly.

    -Suntan
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by jondough View Post
    Let us go back a bit farther as to why 4:3. That, was where film started,
    And if you go back even further, you will see that there was nothing magical about Edison picking 4:3 other than not wanting to “waste” so much space as to use the full, 70mm wide celluloid strips that Mr. Eastman developed. So he asked his assistant to cut them in half. Thus the 35mm, four-perf pull standard was made. And to be completely factual, 1.37 ratio was the original ratio used in silent film. 1.33 (4:3) was later adopted to make room for the optically-recorded audio track that ran along the side of the film strip.

    In short, 4:3 was used because it was available, not because it was desirable.

    At a later date, when the advent and practicality of using anamorphic lenses became feasible for movie projection, the limits imposed by the physical film stock was lifted and allowed for movies with a lot more flexibility in aspect ratio.

    Heck even as far back as the ancient Greeks there was consideration for what aspect ratios were most pleasant to the average humans. 4:3 wasn’t even close. But guess what is…

    You can shrug this off as saying you don’t want to use a tablet for media. That’s fine. But in this day, when most all media is available in 16:9 or Cinemascope, a 4:3 screen is not ideal for anyone that does want to watch media.

    -Suntan
  19. #19  
    [QUOTE=Suntan;2991759]And if you go back even further, you will see that there was nothing magical about Edison picking 4:3 other than not wanting to
    Newness Developments apps:

  20.    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by Suntan View Post
    Having used both 4:3 and 16:10 tablets I fail to see where the challenge is, or where the 4:3 superiority is.

    If a person prefers 4:3, that’s fine. But to say universally that it is the ideal aspect for a tablet is silly.

    -Suntan
    +1
    I guess to each his own I guess... I'm still failing to see why 4:3 is more "usable". With movies, you get "fuller" picture due to less black bar space, and with web pages, you scroll less vertically. And I totally agree with typing while vertical. On my galaxy tab, it's so much easier to hold it vertically and use the virtual keyboard. And 4:3 just seems dated to me...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions