Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPad

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 3, 2012, 01:36 PM   #76
lianlua
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugesaggyboobs View Post
The iPad Mini does not look better. And the reason is simple: everything is scaled down smaller. The pixel density isn't enough to improve the detail.
Of course it is. If the jump between the iPad 2 and the iPad mini isn't enough to improve detail, then neither is the essentially same-size jump between the mini and the "high resolution" tablets from Amazon and Google.

You get more screen space in the iPad mini, which gives you a choice: if you're not comfortable with the smoothness of text, you can zoom in a little bit and still fit the same column width of text on screen (giving you characters with about the same number of pixels in them as the other tablets). If you aren't bothered by the normal-size text, you can view much more content at once.
Quote:
In fact, it looks worse than the iPad 2 that I have.
This is the new go-to line since people aren't buying the retina whining anymore. But none of the handful of people who keep repeating this line have ever backed it up with facts.
Thumb resize.
What exactly is worse? It is smoother, brighter, shows more color saturation and higher contrast with visibly less pixelation.
lianlua is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 02:50 PM   #77
hugesaggyboobs
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spungoflex View Post
That is actually not a fact. It's the opposite of a fact. It's completely false.

The ipad mini is a tablet, and in the small form-factor tablet market, the mini's screen is just fine. If it was 16:9, it would be 1280x800. It's 4:3, so it's 1024x768. Not a big deal at all.

If you compare it to a 10" tablet running retina resolution, yeah there is a difference. Compare it to what else is on the market and it's virtually the same.

----------



That's false. My eyesight is terrible, and I could tell the difference between the ipad 2 and the ipad 3 instantly.
No you are wrong and everything I said is not false.

The Mini's ppi is abysmal now that the tablet market has new standards of near-to-Retina displays.

That's the Nexus 10: 300 ppi
Amazon Kindle Fire HD 7": 216 ppi
Nexus 7: 216 ppi

Mini has a low res screen and it's not acceptable anymore. The texh has moved on.
hugesaggyboobs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 02:56 PM   #78
SR71
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad55 View Post
So what you're saying is that you agree with a reviewer that spent less than 24 hours with the device?

Anyone with a right mind would know that more time is needed to properly judge a product, professional or consumer.
Agreed. That's one of the worst reviews I've ever read in my life. How do you review a device without even having it for a full 24 to 48 hours, if not more?
__________________
-------------------------------
-Mid-2013 13" MacBook Air
-16 GB Verizon iPhone 5

-------------------------------
SR71 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 03:11 PM   #79
hugesaggyboobs
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by lianlua View Post
Of course it is. If the jump between the iPad 2 and the iPad mini isn't enough to improve detail, then neither is the essentially same-size jump between the mini and the "high resolution" tablets from Amazon and Google.

You get more screen space in the iPad mini, which gives you a choice: if you're not comfortable with the smoothness of text, you can zoom in a little bit and still fit the same column width of text on screen (giving you characters with about the same number of pixels in them as the other tablets). If you aren't bothered by the normal-size text, you can view much more content at once.

This is the new go-to line since people aren't buying the retina whining anymore. But none of the handful of people who keep repeating this line have ever backed it up with facts.
Thumb resize.
What exactly is worse? It is smoother, brighter, shows more color saturation and higher contrast with visibly less pixelation.
I'm sorry but I mean this nicely: you have no idea what you're talking about.

First the jump from 7.85 going from 162 ppi to 216 ppi is a full extra 54 ppi more. The jump from iPad 2 to Mini is a difference of 30 ppi, some 45% less ppi difference.

Second you have no clue how Android scales content so it doesn't shrink everything down like it does on iOS do you?

And you also have no idea about the algorithms Apple wrote to make its Retina MacBook Pros NOT scale the content down smaller where everything is the exact same size as it is on the lower res larger pixeled Non-Retina screens... Do you?

Go do some research and come back and then talk about this. You'll see why Apple has a major problem in iOS supporting multiple screen resolutions and sizes just like Windows Phone had up until their version 8 release.

The problem for the Mini is all of the content gets SCALED down 20% smaller yet its pixel density is not good enough to render things like text in good detail at that size. When you look at your iPhone 4+ small text looks incredible. On the Mini it's terrible. They're aren't enough pixels to render the text and shapes. It's grainy. The larger you scale the better things will look.

But in Apple's eyes it was check mate because even if iOS was purposed for multiple screen sizes and resolutions where they could scale content up... to sort of match how the iPad 2 renders things... developers would have to change their UIs because the relative physical sizes of buttons, etc. would shoot off of the smaller screen and it would be a mess. So all those iPad 2 Apps wouldn't work.

In other words, they tried to cheat but the result is bad. Watch, wait, and see about developer reactions hitting the Blogs and market responses after the hype dies down.

I really wanted to like the Mini but the screen is a disaster with the low res and down scaling everything. I love my iPhone 5 and iPad 3.
hugesaggyboobs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 03:12 PM   #80
reputationZed
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: 3455′42″N 8044′41″W (34.928201, -80.744835)
I found the CoM review to be overly dramatic. What bothered me most about the review was the observation that the mini was sluggish in performance. The author made negative claim about the mini's performance but provided no examples to back it up. None of the other reviews I read mentioned sluggish performance, and a few reviews stated performance was on par with the iPad 3rd gen. Rather than being Spot On I felt the CoM review was a thinly disguised rant about the mini not having retina.
reputationZed is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 03:15 PM   #81
seajewel
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by reputationZed View Post
I found the CoM review to be overly dramatic. What bothered me most about the review was the observation that the mini was sluggish in performance. The author made negative claim about the mini's performance but provided no examples to back it up. None of the other reviews I read mentioned sluggish performance, and a few reviews stated performance was on par with the iPad 3rd gen. Rather than being Spot On I felt the CoM review was a thinly disguised rant about the mini not having retina.
Eh I do notice web browsing is slow. Webpages take a while to load. Also mini had a hard time with the game Lili, but it is a large game. It was a little choppy and crashed on load a few times.
__________________
Dropbox! Click for an extra 500MB free storage for both of us! Thank you!
seajewel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 03:21 PM   #82
Gix1k
macrumors 68020
 
Gix1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
What I do know is...with all these complaints....apple is certainly going to release a retina display on the next one..simply no way they can't. Makes me wonder if I should just return mine and live with my iPad 3 until they do.
__________________
LTE iPad Mini 2 32gb
iPad Air 32gb
iphone 5s gold 32gb
MacBook Pro Retina 13"
Gix1k is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 03:21 PM   #83
mattopotamus
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by seajewel View Post
Eh I do notice web browsing is slow. Webpages take a while to load. Also mini had a hard time with the game Lili, but it is a large game. It was a little choppy and crashed on load a few times.
If web pages are taking time to load it's your wifi
mattopotamus is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 03:25 PM   #84
shenan1982
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
I bought my 64gb white iPad Mini at $529 ... I feel it's a good value for that. If they had priced it at $599 I would have bought it. If they would have priced it at $649, I also would have bought it.

Anyone who says it's a ripoff who bought one, go return it, because there's a line at several of my local Apple stores waiting for more to be delivered so they can buy one.
shenan1982 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 04:04 PM   #85
rockyroad55
macrumors 68040
 
rockyroad55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Phila, PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by seajewel View Post
Eh I do notice web browsing is slow. Webpages take a while to load. Also mini had a hard time with the game Lili, but it is a large game. It was a little choppy and crashed on load a few times.
Must be your Internet.
rockyroad55 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 04:07 PM   #86
lianlua
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugesaggyboobs View Post
First the jump from 7.85 going from 162 ppi to 216 ppi is a full extra 54 ppi more. The jump from iPad 2 to Mini is a difference of 30 ppi, some 45% less ppi difference.
That's not how spatial resolution works. The jump from 132 to 163 is about a 23% increase in pixel density. The move from 163 to 216 is about a 31% increase. They are broadly similar gaps.

As you increase in density, you get lower returns. A move from 50 ppi to 100 ppi is a 100% increase. In order to improve by the same margin again, you need an additional 100 ppi. You can't compare the numbers by simple subtraction.
Quote:
Second you have no clue how Android scales content so it doesn't shrink everything down like it does on iOS do you?
What in the world are you even talking about? You're the one talking about how smaller pixels don't improve usability because there are the same number of pixels. In fact, that is just not true.

Let's say you have a column of text 100 characters wide on a Kindle Fire HD (the tablet I own). That works out to character spaces 8 pixels wide, or 27 characters per inch (0.037"). On the iPad mini, the same 27 characters per inch render at 6 pixels wide--25% less, so they're a bit blockier, but the same size (0.037"). But the display is also over an inch wider, so the line width simultaneously increases to 128 characters--more than 25% more. Yet if you zoom the iPad text in so that you're getting the same 100-character line width, then you're looking at pixels that are 7.7 pixels wide (which would round to 8, or 20 characters per inch (0.05"). In other words, you can get the exact same quality of text on the iPad mini as you can on the Android tablets by zooming in a little, because the screen is physically larger, without losing any content. Hold the iPad mini an inch further away, and the angular size becomes exactly the same.

That's a key advantage of the iPad mini is that you have that choice--if you don't mind blockier text, you can fit a lot more on screen. If you do have a problem with it, you can zoom in a bit to smooth it out, then hold it at a comfortable distance and not be able to see any difference at all. On the flip side, if you want 128 characters to appear on screen on the Kindle/Nexus, that's 34.6 per inch (six pixels wide each--a whopping
0.029"). That's uncomfortably small even with the higher ppi.
You'd need to go full-blown retina (at around 280-300ppi) before that changed significantly. A 20-30% pixel density spread among devices is a matter of a few inches of viewing distance. The Galaxy S3 has worse pixel density than the iPhone, but it doesn't matter in practice.
Quote:
The problem for the Mini is all of the content gets SCALED down 20% smaller yet its pixel density is not good enough to render things like text in good detail at that size.
Its pixel density is a matching 23% better, meaning it has precisely the clarity of the iPad 2 at the smaller size. Moreover, because its pixels are smaller and closer together, the zoom scaling required to smooth out small text is lower than the iPad 2.
Quote:
When you look at your iPhone 4+ small text looks incredible. On the Mini it's terrible.
Yes. That's a retina display for you.

But you're still not answering the question. Look at the side-by-side picture. In what way is the mini worse than the iPad 2? It clearly is not.

Last edited by lianlua; Nov 3, 2012 at 04:21 PM.
lianlua is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 04:20 PM   #87
dthree36
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
I returned mine... The screen was ok... The design was wonderful but it didn't offer much versus my iPad 2. I don't need a mini iPad 2... I need a mini with today's tech and not repackaged tech that has been around for almost 2 years and already own. To all mini lovers, I agree with your arguments for the mini. For all the mini screen haters I hear your issue and agree. It was fun for a while but I can wait another 12 months for the new newer thinner iPad 5x or the new iPad mini with retina and this years proc which will be a year old.
__________________
IMac, Macbook Pro, Ipad 2, Ipod Shuffle, Iphone 4S
dthree36 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 04:53 PM   #88
AJsAWiz
macrumors 68000
 
AJsAWiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ohio
Send a message via AIM to AJsAWiz
Quote:
Originally Posted by seajewel View Post
Eh I do notice web browsing is slow. Webpages take a while to load. Also mini had a hard time with the game Lili, but it is a large game. It was a little choppy and crashed on load a few times.
Web browsing, for me, is the same (page loading time) as it was on my iPad 2. Lili (and my other games) runs the same as they did on my iPad 2 as well. As someone else has mentioned, on your web browsing speed, perhaps it might be your network/wifi connection. Did you notice the same slow down on other wifi enabled devices and your computer? On the same network of course.
__________________
AJsAWiz
AJsAWiz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 05:16 PM   #89
hugesaggyboobs
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by lianlua View Post
That's not how spatial resolution works. The jump from 132 to 163 is about a 23% increase in pixel density. The move from 163 to 216 is about a 31% increase. They are broadly similar gaps.

As you increase in density, you get lower returns. A move from 50 ppi to 100 ppi is a 100% increase. In order to improve by the same margin again, you need an additional 100 ppi. You can't compare the numbers by simple subtraction.

What in the world are you even talking about? You're the one talking about how smaller pixels don't improve usability because there are the same number of pixels. In fact, that is just not true.

Let's say you have a column of text 100 characters wide on a Kindle Fire HD (the tablet I own). That works out to character spaces 8 pixels wide, or 27 characters per inch (0.037"). On the iPad mini, the same 27 characters per inch render at 6 pixels wide--25% less, so they're a bit blockier, but the same size (0.037"). But the display is also over an inch wider, so the line width simultaneously increases to 128 characters--more than 25% more. Yet if you zoom the iPad text in so that you're getting the same 100-character line width, then you're looking at pixels that are 7.7 pixels wide (which would round to 8, or 20 characters per inch (0.05"). In other words, you can get the exact same quality of text on the iPad mini as you can on the Android tablets by zooming in a little, because the screen is physically larger, without losing any content. Hold the iPad mini an inch further away, and the angular size becomes exactly the same.

That's a key advantage of the iPad mini is that you have that choice--if you don't mind blockier text, you can fit a lot more on screen. If you do have a problem with it, you can zoom in a bit to smooth it out, then hold it at a comfortable distance and not be able to see any difference at all. On the flip side, if you want 128 characters to appear on screen on the Kindle/Nexus, that's 34.6 per inch (six pixels wide each--a whopping
0.029"). That's uncomfortably small even with the higher ppi.
You'd need to go full-blown retina (at around 280-300ppi) before that changed significantly. A 20-30% pixel density spread among devices is a matter of a few inches of viewing distance. The Galaxy S3 has worse pixel density than the iPhone, but it doesn't matter in practice.

Its pixel density is a matching 23% better, meaning it has precisely the clarity of the iPad 2 at the smaller size. Moreover, because its pixels are smaller and closer together, the zoom scaling required to smooth out small text is lower than the iPad 2.

Yes. That's a retina display for you.

But you're still not answering the question. Look at the side-by-side picture. In what way is the mini worse than the iPad 2? It clearly is not.
Your math is so oversimplified and wrong. I won't throw this thread off getting into it but you can PM me about it.

The bottom line is the pixel density of the Mini is not enough to offset how much the content is scaled down when compared to the iPad 2. It's a combination of pixel sizes, diagonal screen size, colour saturation, average distance held from user, among many other variables.

But nevermind any of this. To say that a Mini screen is just as good as an iPad 2 will get you nowhere because the iPad 2 screen just isn't that good. The point is that smaller pixels are good but not when the ppi isn't a huge jump in addition to everything being shrunk down. The goal is to increase ppi whilst keeping everything the exact same physical size. This is the default on the rMBP, which I use everyday.

Apple wrote an algorithm to scale everything up to the point that everything is the exact same size but they just have more pixels. You lose the gains of smaller pixels in many use cases when you scale everything down as it is on the Mini.
hugesaggyboobs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 05:27 PM   #90
glhiii
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Weight vs. resolution trade-off

A retina display would have to have 4 times as many pixels. I've read that more pixels = more power, so a retina iPad mini would have to be considerably heavier than the present one. If that's the case, I'd prefer the lighter one with the inferior resolution. Of course, if they could make the mini retina without increasing its weight or decreasing its battery time, that would be fantastic. I got a Mini on Friday and have been using it for a few hours a day. I do miss the retina display of my iPad 3, though not the weight. For reading books, it's not bad, since you can make the fonts larger and don't notice the pixellation. And it's not bad for seeing movies.
glhiii is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 05:33 PM   #91
ghsNick
macrumors 65816
 
ghsNick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiarInGlass View Post
Oh look, another pointless post about someone saying the display is a huge problem when it's really not. I've played with mine for maybe two hours or so, and I don't even notice it. The display is good. It's not retina, but retina is not the greatest thing in the world. It's an awesome device.
I'm sorry but you sound like an idiot. I love Apple. I defend Apple. But the screen looks like **** compared to Retina. I'm still keeping my Mini because I love the portability and lightness...but get real. Every fanboy on here will defend their purchase...but as a purchaser of an iPad Mini 32GB I can say the screen sucks.

Grab an iPhone 4, 4S, or 5 and go to the settings page and look at the icons on the left side...compare it to your Mini. Look at the Maps App (just one for example)...it looks awful on the Mini. So stop trying to say the "cool" thing and just admit the screen sucks. Because I sure as hell know when it comes with Retina display you'll be more than excited.
__________________
21.5" iMac (2011) | iPhone 5C 32GB (White) | iPod Classic 120GB
ghsNick is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 05:37 PM   #92
emaja
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoejohndoes View Post
I'm sorry but you sound like an idiot. I love Apple. I defend Apple. But the screen looks like **** compared to Retina. I'm still keeping my Mini because I love the portability and lightness...but get real. Every fanboy on here will defend their purchase...but as a purchaser of an iPad Mini 32GB I can say the screen sucks.
Wait, the screen sucks but you bought one and are keeping it anyway? Doesn't that make you a blind fanboy?

Or...does it make you someone who realizes that compromises needed to be made for Apple to make it the size and weight they wanted at a cost that the market would bear?

As I have said before - no, the screen is not retina and is obviously not as good as the full sized iPad, but it is not terrible. We have become spoiled by retina displays and it is hard to go back.
emaja is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 05:46 PM   #93
lianlua
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugesaggyboobs View Post
Your math is so oversimplified and wrong. I won't throw this thread off getting into it but you can PM me about it.
No. As they say, "put up or shut up". This place is overrun with bald assertions by people unwilling to back them up. It's ridiculous.

The pixel density and the size reduction of the iPad mini are exactly matched. There is no scaling at all.
Quote:
The bottom line is the pixel density of the Mini is not enough to offset how much the content is scaled down when compared to the iPad 2. It's a combination of pixel sizes, diagonal screen size, colour saturation, average distance held from user, among many other variables.
The first sentence is not supported by the second.

The questions, which you are continuing to evade, are: How are smaller pixels worse but even smaller pixels better? How does a directly proportional shift size and physical scale result in disproportional clarity? In what way is the iPad mini display worse, as you claim, than the iPad 2?

The answers, of course, are that they aren't statements supported by reality.
lianlua is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 06:14 PM   #94
magrat22
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Calgary, AB
Can't believe 6 years ago we didn't even have iPhones! Now everything is just taken for granted. "Well all the other devices have retina, this should have it too" Honestly some people just have to complain even just for the sake of complaining.

I bought the mini for what it was a small tablet that is light, beautifully built, looks gorgeous and has amazing battery life. If you don't want this then go buy another tablet and quite whining.

Epic Citadel screenshots on the mini: http://imgur.com/a/edDwY (looks fine to me)

I do own retina screen devices and paid premium prices for them. I like that the mini although not cheap did not case $500 just to give me a super duper resolution display. I don't need it, not for what I want to use the mini for.
__________________
11.6' MacBook Air l iPod Nano 8G 16gb l iPhone 5s 32gb |iPad Mini Retina 32gb
magrat22 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 06:31 PM   #95
ghsNick
macrumors 65816
 
ghsNick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by emaja View Post
Wait, the screen sucks but you bought one and are keeping it anyway? Doesn't that make you a blind fanboy?

Or...does it make you someone who realizes that compromises needed to be made for Apple to make it the size and weight they wanted at a cost that the market would bear?

As I have said before - no, the screen is not retina and is obviously not as good as the full sized iPad, but it is not terrible. We have become spoiled by retina displays and it is hard to go back.
They can pack it into the iPhone and iPods...I'm sure the mini isn't that small for them to out the screen in

It's going to be their BIG feature in the next Generation iPad Mini.
Like I said I like the portability and size factor...I can give up some screen resolution...that doesn't mean I think the screen is good. It's called compromise bro. Not a fan boy.
__________________
21.5" iMac (2011) | iPhone 5C 32GB (White) | iPod Classic 120GB
ghsNick is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 06:53 PM   #96
magrat22
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Calgary, AB
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoejohndoes View Post
They can pack it into the iPhone and iPods...I'm sure the mini isn't that small for them to out the screen in

It's going to be their BIG feature in the next Generation iPad Mini.
Like I said I like the portability and size factor...I can give up some screen resolution...that doesn't mean I think the screen is good. It's called compromise bro. Not a fan boy.
As with everything Apple the like to make sure everything is as perfect as it can be before they release it. Creating a retina display for the mini is not just a case of chopping off the extra from a regular iPad screen it has to be created specifically for it. In order to do that it takes time, testing and creating a new machine to built the screens..it's not an instant process.

http://www.imore.com/ipad-mini-vs-ip...-density-macro
__________________
11.6' MacBook Air l iPod Nano 8G 16gb l iPhone 5s 32gb |iPad Mini Retina 32gb
magrat22 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 07:03 PM   #97
phillymacuser
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
I do not own mini, but am really considering buying one for my wife(work purposes). I have an iPad 1 and iPhone 4s. I use both frequently and the clarity is not that drastic between the two. I did order a refurb iPad 3(could not resist price). There seems to be a lot of complaints regarding the screen because its not "retina". Is it because my 4s is so small that I do not see the reasoning behind this?
phillymacuser is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 07:11 PM   #98
Noctilux.95
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: LA
They should have dropped the iPad 2 and added a Retina version of the mini for $399 along with the non-Retina version at the current price.
People are used to having Retina displays going back to iPhone 4 nearly 2.5 years ago.
Noctilux.95 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 07:27 PM   #99
sineplex
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by token787 View Post
I know Apple has to be laughing and at the same time patting themselves on the back for their marketing skills. NOMATTER, what they put out and put the Apple logo on, people is going to buy it without thinking.
It's not necessarily not thinking. it's usually apples products are better than the rest on average, but still you know it could be better... but that's all there is so you buy it anyway...
sineplex is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 07:27 PM   #100
Spungoflex
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugesaggyboobs View Post
No you are wrong and everything I said is not false.

Amazon Kindle Fire HD 7": 216 ppi
Nexus 7: 216 ppi
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. You are comparing smaller devices with 16:9 aspect ratios, so of course ppi will be different. The mini could have easily had a higher ppi if apple just made it smaller. But guess what, that would have been stupid.

1024x768 for a small tablet with a 4:3 ratio is perfectly fine and basically no different than a 1280x800 on a 16:9 tablet. Those tablets only have 1280 vertical pixels because they are longer. Of course a longer screen will have more vertical pixels.
Spungoflex is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPad

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPad Mini: Ordered a Mini, but received an Air dread iPad 13 Nov 22, 2013 06:58 AM
iPad: Which iPad model will take the iPad 2's $399 spot ? MikeS007 iPad 10 Oct 8, 2013 08:11 AM
iPad Mini: Received iPad Mini and I cannot believe it MacIke iPad 34 Dec 5, 2012 06:48 PM
All iPads: iPad Mini LTE or WiFi version with 4S hot spot? Oohara iPad 3 Nov 7, 2012 08:50 AM
[New Game Announced] Spot'em to spot the differences in Olympics themed events Aimeejoy iPhone and iPod touch Apps 0 Aug 7, 2012 04:28 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:59 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC