What's new

Future Surface tablets planned in 'multiple aspect ratios and sizes'

kristalsoldier

Well-Known Member

kristalsoldier

Well-Known Member
Wow...that's alot of content.
Yeah, well, as you can see, not too much as compared to Spaniard, but this is me trying to convert my physical library into a digital library such that (1) I don't pay through my nose when I move residences from one country to another and (2) I can carry my entire library when I travel
 

demandarin

Active Member
I love reading also but mostly tech news from apps n such. One thing I do miss about my iPad is that it had these interactive books I purchased. Hard to describe but stories that had interactive elements to. To add to the experience. I really got into it. Added sound effects, graphics, etc.. I wish I could find more of these type of books. I do have windows 8 for dummies on Google books and surface for dummies on my pro device though. Through amazon..lol
 

kristalsoldier

Well-Known Member
I love reading also but mostly tech news from apps n such. One thing I do miss about my iPad is that it had these interactive books I purchased. Hard to describe but stories that had interactive elements to. To add to the experience. I really got into it. Added sound effects, graphics, etc.. I wish I could find more of these type of books. I do have windows 8 for dummies on Google books and surface for dummies on my pro device though. Through amazon..lol
Wow! That reference to interactive books reminds me of Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age! (which is an excellent book, btw - well, at least to me). My books are mainly related to my subject matter of interest, which also happens to be work-related. I'll ask around for some sources of interactive books. I think it would be great to read comics in that interactive way!!! But yeah, I have spent a lot of money on books (and recently on devices!), which explains why I seem to be perpetually broke!!!!

Edit: @demandarin - Take a look at this: http://www.ted.com/talks/mike_matas.html

Interesting idea, but I still think interactive comics would be excellent!
 
Last edited:

kristalsoldier

Well-Known Member
I just discovered that the last book I read is 5:4, probably 4:3 is the best for reading...

are books 5:4? magazines and newspapers are golden-ratio?

Is there an app that checks all your docs and pdfs and gives you the average ratio? :cool2:
None that I know of, sorry!!!!!
 

demandarin

Active Member
Wow! That reference to interactive books reminds me of Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age! (which is an excellent book, btw - well, at least to me). My books are mainly related to my subject matter of interest, which also happens to be work-related. I'll ask around for some sources of interactive books. I think it would be great to read comics in that interactive way!!! But yeah, I have spent a lot of money on books (and recently on devices!), which explains why I seem to be perpetually broke!!!!

Edit: @demandarin - Take a look at this: Mike Matas: A next-generation digital book | Video on TED.com

Interesting idea, but I still think interactive comics would be excellent!
That does look really cool and you're right, an interactive comic would be even better. The one I referenced I have is a little different though. It tries to immerse you into the story with various senses. Its a thriller/mystery/horror story. For example, you can be reading a page and it mentions the wind howling or whatever and next thing you know the sound effect for that passage plays out. Or you read a part about blood splattered everywhere in the room and next thing you know digital blood splatters all over the iPad screen. Stuff like that. It has visuals also.
 

CrippsCorner

Well-Known Member
Random thought popped into my head whilst reading through this thread... how comes it's referred to as 16:10 and not 8:5?
 

oion

Well-Known Member
Random thought popped into my head whilst reading through this thread... how comes it's referred to as 16:10 and not 8:5?
Supposedly it is sometimes too, though Wikipedia doesn't have a specific citation. :p

16:10, also known as 8:5, is an aspect ratio mostly used for computer displays and tablet computers. The width of the display is 1.6 times its height. This ratio is close to the golden ratio which is approximately 1.618.
Huh, the actual history of 16:10 is pretty interesting there, if the cites are to be believed:
Until about 2003, most computer monitors had a 4:3 aspect ratio and some had 5:4. Between 2003 and 2006, monitors with 16:10 (8:5) aspect ratios became commonly available, first in laptops and later also in standalone monitors. Reasons for this transition were productive uses for such monitors, i.e. besides widescreen movie viewing and computer game play, are the word processor display of two standard letter pages side by side, as well as CAD displays of large-size drawings and CAD application menus at the same time.[4][5]

In 2005–2008, 16:10 overtook 4:3 as the most sold aspect ratio for LCD monitors. At the time, 16:10 also had 90% of the notebook market and was the most commonly used aspect ratio for laptops.[2] However, 16:10 had a short reign as the most common aspect ratio.

Around 2008–2010, there was a rapid shift by computer display manufacturers to the 16:9 aspect ratio and by 2011 16:10 had almost disappeared from new mass market products. According to Net Applications, by October 2012 the market share of 16:10 displays had dropped to less than 23 percent.[6]

The primary reason for this move was considered to be production efficiency[3][7] - since display panels for TVs use the 16:9 aspect ratio, it became more efficient for display manufacturers to produce computer display panels in the same aspect ratio as well.[8] A 2008 report by DisplaySearch also cited a number of other reasons, including the ability for PC and monitor manufacturers to expand their product ranges by offering products with wider screens and higher resolutions, helping consumers to adopt such products more easily and "stimulating the growth of the notebook PC and LCD monitor market".[2]

The shift from 16:10 to 16:9 was met with a mixed response. The lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, along with their suitability for gaming and movies and the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices, was seen as a positive.[3][9] On the other hand there was criticism towards the lack of vertical screen real estate when compared to 16:10 displays of the same screen diagonal.[9][10] For this reason, some considered 16:9 displays less suitable for productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications, which are mostly designed for taller, rather than wider screens.[9][11][12]
Anyway. Our work dual monitors are 16:10, which is a very significant difference from the old dual 4:3. I can't imagine working on anything less, really, as the width is so much better for having a spreadsheet+browser on one screen and email+corp software on the other. Many usually have one in landscape mode and the other vertical to read long legal documents. I have a 16:9 at home, which can still have two windows side by side, but not as nicely as 16:10; it's good for movies, at least.

I wonder if the "multiple aspect ratios and sizes" statement is mostly an ambitious pipe dream from Panay or a "subject to change" road map, though. There's only so many resources MS can expend while, new to the market, engineering things and throwing them out to see what sticks--the 1st gen was a gamble. The 2nd gen is still a gamble. Cortana is a gamble (not as risky). Breaking against the iPad Mini, like I explained in other threads, is an even riskier gamble than these two current Surface lines. The problem is that users on a Surface forum are already going to be interested in what MS produces in these lines, so claiming that all these different sizes and aspect ratios would be great is missing the bigger point: If the market doesn't respond to the innovative flagship products for which there had been no direct competitors in the hybrid space (more are coming now), how can mini/other products compete in spaces where there are already solid giants? I think there has to be actual innovation from MS and not just a screen size change. Apple can afford cannibalism. MS doesn't have the market share for that. That's my POV, anyway. Speculation is all well and good, but it's far more important to see the 2nd gens succeed.
 
Search tags for this page
7 screen dimensions
directstylus surface
tv dimensions
tv screen dimensions
tv screen size
tv screen size comparison
tv screen size comparison chart
tv screen sizes

tv sizes

tv sizes dimensions
Top