• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New Nexus 7 - Google are going to eat Apple's lunch

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Cool tablet, but what does Google have against being able to use an SD card storage expansion? Google Drive is useless if you do not have a broadband network connection.
 
ultimatebob said:
Cool tablet, but what does Google have against being able to use an SD card storage expansion? Google Drive is useless if you do not have a broadband network connection.
Click to expand...

Couple of reasons, there was something about security, being impossible to properly manage SD card space when considering multiple users, and some other things that I forgot about.
 
That's demonstrably wrong. It's easier to read text in narrower (within reason of course) columns. (as a side note, all metric paper sizes have the split in half property)

Look in your paperback books, they're not 4:3 pages.

Look in large hardcover books, they either have large margins or they break text into columns that are decidedly not 4:3.

Look at newspapers, they'll also break text into columns. 16:10 is probably best although 16:9 is also better.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16473596/Paperback.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16473596/Textbook.jpg
 
Last edited:
Most common book sizes and their aspect ratio:
8.25x10.75 = 1.3
6x8.75 = 1.45
5.25x8.25 = 1.57

Screen size:
16:9 = 1.77
16:10 = 1.6
4:3 = 1.33

16:9 is terrible for reading. Newspapers have narrow columns because the articles are short.
 
MrX8503 said:
Most common book sizes and their aspect ratio:
8.25x10.75 = 1.3
6x8.75 = 1.45
5.25x8.25 = 1.57

Screen size:
16:9 = 1.77
16:10 = 1.6
4:3 = 1.33

16:9 is terrible for reading. Newspapers have narrow columns because the articles are short.
Click to expand...

Is that size of the text on the page?

For example, I just measured A Dance with Dragons hardcover.
Cover dimensions: 9.5x6.5 = 1.46
Text on page dimensions: 7.6x4.4 = 1.72
 
MrX8503 said:
Most common book sizes and their aspect ratio:
8.25x10.75 = 1.3
6x8.75 = 1.45
5.25x8.25 = 1.57

Screen size:
16:9 = 1.77
16:10 = 1.6
4:3 = 1.33
Click to expand...
You're listing the paper sizes. I posted actual images of the text columns in actual books.

I'm thinking you're just being obtuse.
 
All these people saying the Nexus 7 screensize is terrible for reading. Yet I read on mine all the time and it never has once hindered me. Weird...
 
MrX8503 said:
That is if your e-book text is touching the edge of your screen.
Click to expand...

On my Nexus 7 the margin that a physical sheet of paper has is about equal to the size of the side bezel plus the tiny bit of margin you get with ebooks. Why does ebook text have much smaller margins? Perhaps because real paper doesn't have a side bezel that you can hold on to and so it needs bigger margins?

I've got a pretty big library of physical books. All of them more closely resemble the shape of the Nexus 7, not an iPad.
 
i absolutely love reading on my nexus 7. it singlehandedly got me reading more. the screen size and aspect ratio is perfect for me, seems 100% natural.
 
MrX8503 said:
Most common book sizes and their aspect ratio:
8.25x10.75 = 1.3
6x8.75 = 1.45
5.25x8.25 = 1.57

Screen size:
16:9 = 1.77
16:10 = 1.6
4:3 = 1.33

16:9 is terrible for reading. Newspapers have narrow columns because the articles are short.
Click to expand...

that's not why newspapers have narrow columns. Its not even a factual statement that all the articles are short. Narrow columns can be read faster, they allow for more columns for a given width of paper which means multiple stories on the same page.

And what's relevant about books is the width of the columns of text, not the width of the book.

And why are we talking about 16:9 ? The new Nexus 7 isn't 16:9, its 16:10.
 
Last edited:
MrX8503 said:
That is if your e-book text is touching the edge of your screen.
Click to expand...
MBxEN6n.png


Seems to be hitting the edge just fine. I read like this very comfortably.
 
MrX8503 said:
Most common book sizes and their aspect ratio:
8.25x10.75 = 1.3
6x8.75 = 1.45
5.25x8.25 = 1.57
Click to expand...

Where did you get that from? Is that hardcover? Paperbacks are still more popular than hardcover, last time I checked. If that's hardcover, I think it's the measure of the cover and not the pages.

Clearly the most common book is the mass market "A Format" paperback; they are 110mm x 178mm ~4.25″ x 7″. The most common trade paperbacks are 5.5" x 8.5" and 6" x 9".
110x178 = 1.62
5.5x8.5 = 1.55
6x9 = 1.5

1.62 to 1.5 represents your most common small to medium sized books, which are roughly tablet sized. Your larger books may be more square, but many of them are double column and they are bigger than tablets.
 
Last edited:
Currently ITT: You're reading your books wrong and I can prove it!

Seriously, the thing that actually matters here is that reading on an e-reader/tablet gives you a uniform experience. Same margins, text size, font, feel, etc. and all set to your own individual preferences. That's what's impressive; regardless of whether you're reading on a 10" iPad or a 7" Nexus or an e-ink device.
 
Tom said:
that's not why newspapers have narrow columns. Its not even a factual statement that all the articles are short. Narrow columns can be read faster, they allow for more columns for a given width of paper which means multiple stories on the same page.

And what's relevant about books is the width of the columns of text, not the width of the book.

And why are we talking about 16:9 ? The new Nexus 7 isn't 16:9, its 16:10.
Click to expand...

You're right about speed, but the same doesn't apply to monitors.

http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/nov02.asp

Someone brought up 16:9, I know the N7 is 16:10.
 
Tablets and ereaders are much closer to paper than a monitor.

A monitor is fixed and you must pass your eyes across it. Tablets and paper are held in your hands and you can shift it freely. (plus the studies are using 12 point size on monitors instead of the 10 point on paper probably because readers are further from the screen)


As for 16:9, 16:10 and 4:3, let's not argue minute details.

16:9 and 16:10 are in the widescreen class whereas 4:3 is clearly a separate class.
 
Last edited:
Nobody sat down and made monitors have the aspect ratio they do because it was good for reading.

They were based on tv tech so to manufacture them in tv factories they had to be similar in aspect ratio. And people got used to them.
 
WTF is this? We're talking about widescreen versus standard and when the comparison is drawn between books, people bring up the TEXT only?

A book is the medium by which you read, just like the SCREEN is. There's inherently other margins on websites as a part of the design. The point is 4:3 is far easier to read than 16:10. Look at pieces of paper. Do you print legal paper 24/7, or are most papers letter sized? 8.5 x 11? Even when you account for 1" margins, its still 6.5 x 9 which is 1.38 ratio.

Let's not forget that tablets are not just for TEXT only reading. We're talking about general reading. Magazines, webpages, powerpoint slides, etc are not really meant to be enjoyed in widescreen.
 
MrX8503 said:
Here's a good blog post about aspect ratios.

http://www.2ality.com/2012/11/tablet-aspect-ratios.html

16:9 is too narrow for reading. 16:10 and 4:3 is better for reading. A4 sheet of paper is between the Nexus and iPad. The interesting about A4 is that its the same aspect ratio when cut in half.
Click to expand...

I think you need to qualify that statement - reading what? For books, 16:9 is fine. For webpages and magazines, I agree that a wider display is better, with 4:3 being the best of the three.
 
DLeRium said:
WTF is this? We're talking about widescreen versus standard and when the comparison is drawn between books, people bring up the TEXT only?

A book is the medium by which you read, just like the SCREEN is. There's inherently other margins on websites as a part of the design. The point is 4:3 is far easier to read than 16:10. Look at pieces of paper. Do you print legal paper 24/7, or are most papers letter sized? 8.5 x 11? Even when you account for 1" margins, its still 6.5 x 9 which is 1.38 ratio.

Let's not forget that tablets are not just for TEXT only reading. We're talking about general reading. Magazines, webpages, powerpoint slides, etc are not really meant to be enjoyed in widescreen.
Click to expand...

16:10 portrait is fantastic for reading web sites and text. Why do you think so man developers use 16:10 monitors in portrait for coding.
 
Puddle Jumper said:
16:10 portrait is fantastic for reading web sites and text. Why do you think so man developers use 16:10 monitors in portrait for coding.
Click to expand...

The ideal setup is dual monitors with 4:3 monitor and a 16:9 vertical for most common tasks.

For gaming or video you might want a different setup, but I very much like a fixed 4:3 and a rotating 16:10 on the side. 16:10 is perfect for reading vertically oriented scanned documents like standard 8.5" x 11", 4:3 works better for nearly everything else (except widescreen movies, of course, in which case you want 16:9 😀).

I like websites on 4:3. Less wasted space horizontally, unless the site is designed to be responsive, but even then I can focus easier on text in a 4:3 monitor. Easier to read down a narrower page or column than across.

I'm very much looking forward to the day we get adjustable size flexible scrolls (as opposed to tablets) with OLED displays so that way everyone can change screen size on the fly.
 
Last edited:
Eh,

I have to say that I do find web surfing cramped on widescreen tablets, while it is comfortable in either landscape or portrait using the ipad.

So again, the ipad wins. the ipad is probably worth twice as much as a given android tablet, given similar specs. So like a fair price for the transformer 10.1 isn't $500. It's more like $250. Well, since the transformer 10.1 really competes against the ipad 2, not the ipad 3/4, it should really be closer to $180
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top