A 2 in 1 laptop/tablet with some performance?


#42

Good idea to get our standards straight before starting the discussion, @mirv!

Now, my thoughts on screen resolution are as follows (it’ll be a bit long, you can skip to the end for the conclusion or open the details pane below to see my reasoning):

[details=Helios’ wordy and extensive reasoning]
I think the relevant resolutions in this day and age are:
Full HD (1920x1080)
Quad HD (2560x1440)
Ultra HD (3840x2160)

As I’m a fan of 16:10 screens, adding a bit of extra screen that’s really nice for productivity work. I’d like to add:
Wide Ultra XGA (1920x1200)
Wide Quad XGA (2560x1600)

Hate on Apple all you like, but I like the ‘retina display’ concept: Once you can no longer make out individual pixels at a typical viewing distance (‘typical’ for a notebook is considered 20"), pixel density is high enough and a higher resolution at that screen size makes little sense.

With that in mind:
FHD and WUGXA are suitable enough for displays up to 13"
QHD and WQXGA are suitable enough for displays up to 17"
UHD is suitable enough for displays up to 20"

Alternatively, if you want to go for a 2-in-1 you may consider tablet mode (where ‘typical viewing distance’ for these purposes is considered 15"). In this case you’ll need a slightly higher PPI.

With that in mind:
FHD and WUGXA are suitable enough for displays up to 9.5-10"
QHD and WQXGA are suitable enough for displays up to 13"
UHD is suitable enough for displays up to 19"

If we’re looking at a device with a 13" display, QHD/WQXGA should be enough to give an excellent user experience in tablet mode, and FHD/WUXGA should give an excellent user experience in laptop mode, and still a very good experience in tablet mode.

If we’re looking for a display size in the 14" to 15" range, one might make a case for an UHD screen for ultra-crisp close-up tablet mode viewing. At the same time, QHD/WQXGA would be very acceptable in close-up tablet mode, and more than sufficient in laptop mode.

Since battery life is influenced by resolution --with higher-resolution displays generally sucking more juice-- I think a case can be made for keeping the resolution as low as required. From this perspective I’d go with the laptop mode resolutions.

Display sizes and resolutions to consider then would boil down to:[/details]

If 16:9 has preference:
13" at 1920x1080 Full HD
14-15" at 2560x1440 Quad HD

If 16:10 has preference:
13" at 1920x1200 WUXGA
14-15" at 2560x1600 WQXGA

So pick your preferred display ratio. Then pick your preferred display diagonal. There you go, the most sensible resolution for your screen!


#43

I didn’t really spot a real difference between the 3:2 of surface pro and 16:9 of my laptop, but that could be due to higher resolution on the surface pro which allowed more work space (even if you don’t see the pixels beyond FHD, higher resolution without scaling results in more work space, if you can live with the smaller icons and such). I personally would prefer 16:9 since it is what I am used to on my laptop, although 16:10 would make sense to me to be better. On my laptop the 16:9 makes for a bit to much available width that I don’t use for the clips and timeline previews (they have grey bars at both sides now) but the extra width is welcome for the timeline. So I would guess that the 16:10 could allow for a bit higher previews screens, so there is less wasted space between them and I could have a clearer view over them to spot mistakes or such. On the other hand, I sometimes have 3 audio tracks and 3 video tracks running at the same time, and scrolling through them is not that handy, so in those cases the extra bit of height can also help.

So for me 16:9 or 16:10 would both be good. Though I think that 3:2 seems like preferred by microsoft, I think wider screens than that gives more productivity (easier to place 2 programs next to eachother).

About the screen diagonal, 14" is fine for me (although, if we change the screen ratio that could change). It is not that I have bad eyesight, I am dyslexic, so the smaller the letters the more troubles I can run into for reading plain text. I have a ipad air 1 (10" I believe?) and there I should at least need 2/3 of the screen width to comfortably read A4-word documents/pdf’s, so on those screens it wouldn’t work for me to have 2 word documents/pdf’s next to each other open (not that ipad supports something like that). But in all fairness, I am just dyslexic, so I am just an exception.


#44

OK, good start and comments.

I thought that it was best to start from the display as that is one’s interface with the device.

I have to admit that it really puzzles me why 16:9 ratio displays are so abundant. In my view they are good for gaming and video watching - for productivity work they are poor. But bigger the better i.e. something like 28 inch 16:9 with QHD resolution or better starts to be okay.

It may seem like a small vertical increase from 16:9 to 16:10, but in practice it makes working a lot easier. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem that many 16:10 screens available in 14 - 16 inch size.

Availability of other than 16:9 ratio screens is good in about 10 - 14 inch size, but these screen sizes give less possibilities for a good design based on requirements dictated by cooling and battery.

I suggest as a starting point 15,4 inch 16:10 screen with 2880 x 1800 resolution. This screen - size and resolution - is used exclusively by Apple and may not be available to other manufacturers. Pixel density is 220. And it isn’t touch enabled, but that isn’t a problem.

There is an abundant supply of 15,6 inch 16:9 1920 x 1080 screens and in reality this may be the most cost effective option. Pixel density is 141.

Let’s see what kind of results we get in a quick poll:

  • 15,4 inch 2880 x 1800 touchscreen with 16:10 ratio and 220 PPI
  • 15,6 inch 1920 x 1080 touchscreen with 16:9 ratio and 141 PPI
  • Neither is good, something else

0 voters


#45

How is this not a problem? We’re still talking about a hybrid device aren’t we?


#46

I could be wrong but I think the display panel itself and touchscreen screen are different features.


#47

Ideally, they are one unit. The fewer the layers, the thinner the display and the smaller the offset between where you touch and where you see your target.


#48

Ah, I thought you were referring to 1440p, as in half of 4K (I mean, 4K/2 = (4/2)K = 2K)
I think 16:9 is the best for a production device. More horizontal space allows you to fit more windows on the same screen simultaneously, which is always good and I couldn’t live without it. Working on 4:3 is a total nightmare for me because I can’t multitask properly… And while 16:10 would not be nearly as bad, it’s still moving to the wrong direction, in my honest opinion.

Well, I can’t see individual pixels on my 20" 1080p monitor, am I blind now? :smile: The point is, you usually look at these bigger displays from a further distance, so you don’t need to maintain the pixel density. Or were you talking about 20" notebooks? :smile:

I wouldn’t call that a correct poll, as the options have completely different PPI. You should really compare 1920x1080 to 1920x1200 or 2560x1440 to 2560x1600. It makes no sense to compare 1080p to 1800p because people will always choose higher pixel density even if they prefer the other aspect ratio.

Allow me to disagree here. I’d rather get a slight horizontal space increase than vertical… Most software with tons of toolbars allows moving them to the sides, so that space can definitely be used, and as a bonus you can multitask more efficiently by putting windows side by side and still having them usable.


#49

Than maybe we should first discuss the aspect ratio and after that we could discuss the pixel density. I did allow for multiple choice for those who are not able to decide between options.

  • 16:9
  • 16:10
  • 3:2
  • 4:3
  • Other
  • Doesn’t matter for me all that much

0 voters


#50

Good thinking, Batman!

Here are couple of presentations of what the aspect ratio in practice means. First one shows how much more height 16:10, 3:2 and 4:3 ratios gain in height compared to 16:9 ratio.

And the second one visualises how much more width 16:9 ratio gains against 4:3 and 3:2 ratios.
And again, 16:10 ratio shows the gain of height against 16:9 ratio.

Hope that these pictures make it easier for people to imagine how they can use the different ratio screen real estates to their benefit.

Disclaimer: I presume that these ratio presentations are relatively accurate as I haven’t created nor checked them.


#51

Since most discussion seems between 16:9 and 16:10, I would like to add this for comparison, it shows how these relate to eachother if they were the same diagonal:


#52

But the reality is, the diagonal is not always the same :wink:


#54

I do know that, but I think we should first numb down about the ratio, than have a look at preferred rough screen size and then we can have a look at the possible ratio and screen sizes that are commonly available. But for if you are interested, here you can compare 16:10 15,4" to 16:9 15,6":


#55

Hey @Brecht_Schatteman, based on your wishes, the 15" version of the upcoming Lenovo Yoga 720 should interest you:

  • 15,6" FHD (1.920 x 1.080) IPS Touch Display / UHD (3.840 x 2.160) IPS Touch Display
  • Up to Intel Core i7-7700HQ (Kaby Lake)
    
  • Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 (optional)
    
  • Up to 1 TB PCIe SSD, up to 16 GB DDR4-RAM
    
  • 2x USB 3.0, 1x USB 3.1, 1x Thunderbolt 3, 3.5mm Audio
    
  • 802.11ac WLAN, Bluetooth
    
  • Up to 9 hours battery life (with UHD-display: 8 hours), 72 Wh battery
    
  • Starting at 2.0 kg, 364 x 242 x 19 mm
    
  • Special features: Fingerprint sensor, Active Pen, JBL-speakers
    
  • Case-colors: Platinum Silver, Iron Grey
    

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-Even-more-details-about-Yoga-720-with-Quad-Core-CPUs-and-GeForce-1050-leaked.196622.0.html


#56

Seems awesome, but knowing Lenovo it might not have even 4h of battery life. On the other hand, my friend manages to get 6h out of his Y700, which is more than the advertised 4h. But that’s quite extreme, he can’t do anything else than browse the web on a single tab in this case :smile:
And the price will probably surprise us. It starts at $1100 or something, but I bet that’s for i3, no GPU and 4GB RAM model.


#57

That seems like what I would need, but I bet the price will be high, and I fear its availability in Belgium. I also think that Eve can make it more affordable. But let’s see how that lenovo turns out


#58

I would like to add that Surface Pro 4 was a pretty good tablet when Pyramid Flipper prroject began. But that didn’t stop Eve from improving it in all possible ways :wink: I think they could do the same with this Lenovo. And this time, make Windows optional (!!!)


#59

If they improve on it it would be better, and worth the money. If windows pro is in the option list, that would be great for me.


#60

I think it’s best to make Windows completely optional, so if you want the pro version, you can buy it yourself and you don’t need to pay for a home license. Many people already have a Windows key laying around, some are not even going to use that OS… I think it’s unfair to sell a computer without offering a possibility to opt out of the OS choice.


#61

I think I did just misunderstand you, I thought you meant that you could chose the OS as an option, like an option list. But it seems you meant to deliver it without OS.


#62

I meant making Windows optional. That means you get two options:

  1. Windows
  2. No Windows