2048x1536

[onodera]

...is the rumoured display resolution of the next iPad. Even with Jobs dead Apple still knows how to ****ing upstage everyone. And I was getting excited about the new Asus tablet with 1920x1200.

[Vanguard]

...is the rumoured display resolution of the next iPad. Even with Jobs dead Apple still knows how to ****ing upstage everyone. And I was getting excited about the new Asus tablet with 1920x1200.

Except for the different aspect ratio, I don't think there will be any practical difference between a 1920x1200 display and the 2048x1536. On both displays the pixels should be too small to see.

[onodera]

I like 4:3, to be honest. No idea why all Android tablets are widesreen.

[Vanguard]

I like 4:3, to be honest. No idea why all Android tablets are widesreen.

Agree. And once the iPad can play 1080p, the widescreen tablets will be even more pointless.

[Asher]

I like 4:3, to be honest. No idea why all Android tablets are widesreen.

I much prefer the widescreen aspect ratio. It plays HD videos without black bars, so it's effectively a much larger display.

It also works better to read long text (less scrolling). Websites are designed with a fixed width, but vertically scrollable. 4:3 actually makes very little sense at high resolutions.

[Vanguard]

I much prefer the widescreen aspect ratio. It plays HD videos without black bars, so it's effectively a much larger display.

It also works better to read long text (less scrolling). Websites are designed with a fixed width, but vertically scrollable. 4:3 actually makes very little sense at high resolutions.

I can't agree that it works better for long text. The lines are too short, especially for websites.

However, I have to admit that for a 7" tablet, widescreen works better. With a smaller tablet you do almost everything in landscape orientation anyway, so you get the same screen width as a larger tablet (in portrait) but with much less weight and bulk. When I tried out a Playbook and a Fire, I found that less weight and bulk was a much nicer feature than I expected it to be.

But not nice enough to prefer them to a 'retina' display.

[Asher]

I can't agree that it works better for long text. The lines are too short, especially for websites.

I'm sorry -- 1080/1200 pixels isn't enough?

[Vanguard]

I'm sorry -- 1080/1200 pixels isn't enough?

It doesn't really matter how many pixels you have. The text still has to be large enough to read. And when you make it large enough to read comfortably, the lines are too short.

YMMV, of course. But would you use your 22" wide screen monitor in portrait mode? Of course not. It would just look stupid.

[Asher]

I use a 23" monitor (1080p) in portrait mode daily at work. It fits tons more code on the screen without scrolling. It's amazing.

At home I use a 23" monitor (1080p) in landscape mode for gaming. No one uses 4:3 monitors at home or at work for a reason.

[Oncle Boris]

There's also a rumor that the next round of Mac laptops will have "retina" level resolutions.

How will a tablet or laptop GPU handle this?

[Hauldren Collider]

I use a 23" monitor (1080p) in portrait mode daily at work. It fits tons more code on the screen without scrolling. It's amazing.

At home I use a 23" monitor (1080p) in landscape mode for gaming. No one uses 4:3 monitors at home or at work for a reason.

I prefer being able to put two windows of code side by side. I like to keep my program on the left and the spec on the right. I find that if I don't have the spec right in front of me, I forget to include stuff.

[Asher]

thats why you have 3 monitors.

[Vanguard]

Coding, admittedly, is a possible exception. Personally I prefer two windows, but I suppose if you were writing really long functions for some reason, you might prefer a vertical screen.

Very few people however use their tablets for coding. For reading a 4:3 orientation works best.

[Asher]

Coding is reading. It's providing context while consuming data.

I much prefer 16:9. My iPhone was 4:3 and my Galaxy Nexus is 16:9 and I can't tell you how much easier it is to read forums and news sites on the Galaxy Nexus.

[Vanguard]

Coding is reading. It's providing context while consuming data.

I much prefer 16:9. My iPhone was 4:3 and my Galaxy Nexus is 16:9 and I can't tell you how much easier it is to read forums and news sites on the Galaxy Nexus.

Well, you're strange.

Humans prefer 4:3.

[Asher]

That certainly explains the proliferation of 4:3 TVs we see today.

[Vanguard]

That certainly explains the proliferation of 4:3 TVs we see today.

I must be confused. I thought we were talking about tablets, not televisions.

Certainly wide-screen is better for watching wide-screen movies on. Because, you see, those movies are wide-screen.

Anything else I can explain for you?

[Asher]

Yes, like how you confuse content size with aspect ratio.

A 16:9 display with 1200 pixels wide fits a ton of content. If your web or reading content doesn't fit in such a resolution, you are doing it wrong.

Humans read faster with a certain specific width of text. This is why newspaper columns are oriented as such. There's no evidence at all to say "humans prefer 4:3", but there's plenty to the contrary. A physically wider tablet doesn't mean it's easier to read. Science would point to the opposite.

[onodera]

Yes, like how you confuse content size with aspect ratio.

A 16:9 display with 1200 pixels wide fits a ton of content. If your web or reading content doesn't fit in such a resolution, you are doing it wrong.

Humans read faster with a certain specific width of text. This is why newspaper columns are oriented as such. There's no evidence at all to say "humans prefer 4:3", but there's plenty to the contrary. A physically wider tablet doesn't mean it's easier to read. Science would point to the opposite.

If I hold a 16:9 tablet in landscape mode, there's too little vertical space, I prefer to see more of the text I am reading.
If I hold it in portrait mode, its horizontal resolution is too low to render a lot of sites.
This can be solved by a 1200x1920 tablet, but then there's too much vertical space.

[onodera]

Aand... it's true. ****. Let's see how much Android tablet prices will fall, I have bought too much sw on Google Play.

[DanS]

A shame for sure in that form factor. I use my 4:3 monitors in portrait and it works fine. I'd imagine 16:9 monitors in portrait would look good too.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I must be confused. I thought we were talking about tablets, not televisions.

Certainly wide-screen is better for watching wide-screen movies on. Because, you see, those movies are wide-screen.

Anything else I can explain for you?

And why exactly ARE those movies wide-screen (they used to be 4:3 in the old days)? Because humans prefer 16:9.

Furthermore just about every laptop screen is widescreen (including Apple) as is the IPHONE. If humans preferred 4:3, we'd be seeing a lot more Android tablets in 4:3, wouldn't we?

[Asher]

I'm waiting for the high-def Android tablets before I spring for one.

There's no way I could suffer iOS after using Android 4.0 on my phone...I'm spoiled with Chrome and Firefox and the slickness.

[DaShi]

I second that. iOS feels clunky and old-fashioned compared to Android. Can't wait to get the upgrade for the Galaxy SII.

[DaShi]

OMG! Pleco is now fully functional on Android. You can also transfer all your iOS purchases to your Android device. There is now no reason to choose an Apple product over an Android one.

[onodera]

Don't tell me you do not know why computer screens went from 4:3 to 16:9. It hasnothing to do with human preferences.

[Sir Og]

Why di computer screens go from 4:3 to 16:9?

[onodera]

16:9 screens are cheaper, and you can sell "cinematic" experience at the expense of useful vertical resolution.

[Asher]

Human vision is wider than it is taller. Humans prefer widescreen. Film did not move from 4:3 to widescreen because it's cheaper.

[VetLegion]

Anyone in the market for an iPad2?

I must get the new one but can't afford two...