Coffeehouse Thread

17 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Win8: System.Client.Tablet.Graphics.MinimumResolution : 1366x768

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    androidi

    From the

    File name: windows8-hardware-cert-requirements-system.pdf

    @ http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/hh748200.aspx

    I think specifying a wide aspect ratio as the minimum is questionable. I'm not interested in device that's practically a typical laptop, just now without a keyboard. They should've specd just a number of pixels or gone with a tried and market tested aspect ratio (4:3), and maybe also specify some actual panel quality requirements so there won't be any completely unusable bottom of the barrel panels used by anyone.

     

  • User profile image
    JoshRoss

    1997 just called. She wants her monitor back.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    @androidi: I'd prefer 16:10 aspect ratio over 4:3. I could go for a 1920 x 1200 convertible.

  • User profile image
    Blue Ink

    @androidi: technically, the specifications do not forbid a 4:3 aspect ratio as long as it meets or exceeds the requirements (e.g. 1440x1080). Also, those requirements are for getting the hardware certification; in theory OEMs could just give that up and do as they please.

    Regardless of the respective advantages, requiring a 4:3 aspect ratio would have most likely resulted in the same resolution of the iPad, which would have been unwise for a latecomer (ah, the irony).

  • User profile image
    androidi

    @JoshRoss:

    Where you did pull this "1997" from? I can't bother to check but I recall this ratio has been around longer. Back in the day, only the few people who watch movies complained about aspect ratios. Now everyone (esp. those who watch old TV series) complains about them. That would be me.

    BTW. To anyone who threw their glorious PC CRTs away, and especially those who didn't.

    http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviewshd/bdreviews011812.html

    ST:TNG, scanned from original film negatives this time (something I knew would eventually happen, skipped buying all those "VHS quality on DVD" Paramount put out). In a glorious format, just suitable for close distance viewing from a PC or professional broadcast monitoring CRT.

    "The series was originally shot on film and then transferred to videotape, which was used to edit episodes together. In order to create true HD masters, CBS is going back to the original uncut film negative...and cutting the episodes together exactly the way they originally aired."

    (I guess they now have to buy the ipad to view this "properly" since hell will freeze before they release this in wide format, which would only happen by leaving out part of film scanned image)

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , androidi wrote

    I can't find reliable source but some web low reliability web rumors are the next Ipad could have 3:2 or 16:10 resolution. Personally I think they'll stick with what works. Why change a winning 4:3 recipe?

    I don't think the 4:3 aspect ratio is any part of the winning recipe. People would have bought it even if it had a 1:1 aspect ratio.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    @androidi:

    If you want, you can tell OEM to make taller pixels, which would end up with 4:3 aspect ratio in the end. Angel

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    AndyC

    @androidi: Widescreen panels are cheaper, because they're also suitable for TVs, so they're the most common anyway. And there's nothing stopping you from making a panel with a larger pixel area in whatever aspect ratio you wanted, although Win8's interface is clearly optimised for a widescreen display.

  • User profile image
    Harlequin

    I think one of the other main points is they didn't want WIndows 8 App developers to have to worry about all the silly small resolutions like 800x600 or 1024x768. We already have to reshuffle things for larger screens, portait mode, snap view. Even on 1024x768, in a Windows 8 metro application, you're actual content area would end up being something like 920x590. I can see that just by looking at the mockup of a Win8 app we're working on now I have open in PhotoShop. 920x590 seems too small of a content area I think.

  • User profile image
    contextfree`

    my understanding is that anything with width >= 1366 and height >= 768 is acceptable, so you could have a 4:3 1366x1024 for example.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    @Harlequin: The minimum resolution a Metro app has to support (aside from snap vew) is 1024*768. In that mode side-by-side snap functionality is disabled so the app is guaranteed the full screen. I'm not sure where you're getting the 920*950 figure from.

  • User profile image
    Harlequin

    I meant something like this(below). Where the content area(~920x590 or so) is what I see as limiting in a 1024x768 experience. Yeah you have the same height as a 1366 wide, but the width limits things I think.

    Generic Forum Image

    Just had this thought, there is also the portrait view, so 1366x768 would end up as 768x1366. Just saw that in the emulator in the app I"m working on. Going to take extra CSS to clean that one up and re-lay everything out Smiley

  • User profile image
    JoshRoss

    , androidi wrote

    @JoshRoss:

    Where you did pull this "1997" from? I can't bother to check but I recall this ratio has been around longer. Back in the day, only the few people who watch movies complained about aspect ratios. Now everyone (esp. those who watch old TV series) complains about them. That would be me.

    4:3 has been around for a very long time. I pulled 1997 out of my butt, it was just the year I graduated from high school. I spent a lot of time behind CRTs that year. It was a lot of work to pack the steal cased computer with the 80 pound 21in CRT to friends houses, durring the weekends.

    -Josh

  • User profile image
    spivonious

    My current screens are 1600x1200 (120dpi) CRT on my desktop, 1280x1024 (96dpi) LCD at work, 1366x768 (96dpi) LCD on my wife's laptop, and 480x800 (200+dpi) LCD on my phone.

    I think limiting things to resolutions is silly. I could have a 1920x1080 screen with a 200dpi and be effectively running a 720x480 screen (or less) at 96dpi.

  • User profile image
    Harlequin

    I think the limiting of resolutions is to stop OEMs from making smaller tablets for Windows 8. There are resolutions out there in tablet that are: 1024x600, 800x480, 600x800, etc. Windows 8 Metro apps just wouldn't work on all these smaller resolutions, both in functionality and in content presentation.

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    really i would like to see displays spec'ed   as size in inches / metric  and PPI

    like 10" x 8" @ 300PPI 

    i hate trying to find a good flatpanel all the common ones i see at like bestbuy are like 80 PPI

     

  • User profile image
    androidi

    Well I started to think about how would all these problems be solved: feedback loop for finding real market demand without making consumers beta testers (I didn't quite solve this one below unfortunately); Ability for the market to make proper judgement - a real comparison in the final usage conditions with a feedback mechanism to design & manufacturer, all before final purchase happens.

    It's certainly interesting to think what effect does it have on the market to specify minimum requirements. Does it drive the manufacturers to produce something at the specified minimum if that's the lowest cost also? The old school way of doing things is a demand test: You produce various types of things and see what gets bought then produce more of those. The problem with this by my guess mainly setup costs and time of all sort of advanced facilities required to produce tablets and panels. Since real choices will be few, the actual demand remains a question. The Ipad aspect ratio maybe "market tested" like I said but it's not tested quite properly since there are big confounding variables. Then again, the focus groups may say they want a "better horse" (and someone would produce those) but when given a car and a better horse they'd pick the car.

    You have to both see how it works, handles and looks (for display panels) in person to make proper judgement. For small retailers this could be big burden since, one customer "should" technically be able to order every item in the shop and return all but (one per comparison category or just one if there's no categories) for free. (Also "demo in retail shop with good service, return & buy from cheap internet shop" issue - below I'll detail a system which should solve this issue) - As much as I like consumers rights, that is not really practical. The shops should be for making the final purchase. There should be a system which allows something equal to "test driving various car models".

    The middle men between the retail and the manufacturing could take this role of supplying and refurbishing demo units efficiently (and taking the demo units out of circulation if there was a feedback of a problem in a unit, they wouldn't have to test them at all). So the cost of the ability to properly demo & compare at home should fall equally to all purchase channels.

    There needs to be a demand based supply of demo units that are in "almost like new" condition. One should be able to do a comprehensive comparison without fronting money for every the test subject (in a demo subject group). (eg. you'd pay full retail for the most expensive unit in the demo group + s&h, and get the other demo units - after compare you'd return all of them and get all money except the demo group s&h cost, which would be returned to you if you buy one of the units (with a normal single unit s&h. I'll repeat this again in other words below.)

    For displays you really need to see atleast two at once to make proper comparison and in the final lighting conditions rather than the retail shop lighting. Of course equally, the demo shipments need to be tracked & delivery authenticated and if one doesn't return the demo units there should be methods to deal with that. (eg. if you could have max 5 demo units at home at once from a national demo unit distributor, just having them ban you from receiving further demo units until you return those would be quite big incentive to return the demo units properly. However the shipping fees for this system could be a problem. There may need to be a system where you pay upfront ship & handling fee for the demo units which will be returned to you if you permanently buy any of the models you are comparing. So in the end, you pay just single shipping & handling fee and it won't be for the demo units - this means that part of the demo shipping cost may have to be split between the final purchase shipping cost (retail pays to distributor) and the "all demo units returned and no purchase made" fee which will be larger & enough to stop people who might like to abuse the system.

    So what is the problem with this "great system" ?

    It could lead to worsening return rights for "final purchase" units unless those are regulated by law. - Bad when there might be differences between the demo units and the brand new ones.. To avoid this, the return rights outside the demo system need to still exist and additionally, you should be able to buy a unit from the demo group (which might or might not be used) if you don't want to bother testing a brand new unit again. (eg. you might have got a pixel defect free demo display but then return it and got a display with pixel defect for the final purchase). edit: There may need to be a disincentive to coax people from using the normal return system for things that the "demo units from distributor" system is for.

     

    In some large retailers, you may already have ability to do things like this, but such ability is also a large barrier to entry for competitors, leading to consolidation and one shop per country/continent that has the volumes to be able to do such things while being still competitive on the price. This type of great service is not cost competitive to do in small shops with small volumes. Currently this fact is seen simply as a much worse service - I can't get all the units I want for simultaneous comparison and then good luck trying to return fully used (even if used for just few days) unit to the shops - they have to ship them back somewhere. The system I propose shifts all consumers to extensively demo units before paying anything to manufacturer instead of "buy and regret later" - most shops I know have no good feedback back to product design. Newegg probably has the best I've seen since there's representatives reading the reviews. I want ALL shops to have this ability globally and it should be feasible for even smallest shops to get demo unit orders without the shop getting burdened with returns.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.