Browsing is really better than a huge LCD?

nightfly13

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jul 17, 2008
679
0
Ranchi, India
I'm already a convert and plan to get 1 or 2 iPads next time I'm back home stateside. But I'm also a pixel counting real estate snob (see sig.).

I theorize that maybe part of what you guys like is using portrait mode for browsing because you haven't this much before? I have 2 portrait 22" 1080p Monitors flanking my (landscape) 30". One of the 22" monitors is strictly a Safari display, running 1080x1920. I'm sure touching and pinch zooming and whatnot is nice - I have a 3GS and am convinced I'll like the 10" version - but is it really so much better than 2 million pixels in portrait orientation?

I used to have a laptop with a 10.2" XGA display and I only kept it 6 months - and it was attached to a 19" (big at the time) LCD for desk use. I'm not second guessing the awesomeness of the iPad, but when I read the superlatives about the browsing experience, I wonder if that's coming from a browsing experience as awesome as mine (1080x1920 dedicated screen).
 

xraydoc

macrumors demi-god
Oct 9, 2005
7,231
1,512
192.168.1.1
I'm already a convert and plan to get 1 or 2 iPads next time I'm back home stateside. But I'm also a pixel counting real estate snob (see sig.).

I theorize that maybe part of what you guys like is using portrait mode for browsing because you haven't this much before? I have 2 portrait 22" 1080p Monitors flanking my (landscape) 30". One of the 22" monitors is strictly a Safari display, running 1080x1920. I'm sure touching and pinch zooming and whatnot is nice - I have a 3GS and am convinced I'll like the 10" version - but is it really so much better than 2 million pixels in portrait orientation?

I used to have a laptop with a 10.2" XGA display and I only kept it 6 months - and it was attached to a 19" (big at the time) LCD for desk use. I'm not second guessing the awesomeness of the iPad, but when I read the superlatives about the browsing experience, I wonder if that's coming from a browsing experience as awesome as mine (1080x1920 dedicated screen).
But can you carry your 74 inches of screen with you?
 

JtheLemur

macrumors 6502
May 13, 2002
492
23
I used to have a laptop with a 10.2" XGA display and I only kept it 6 months - and it was attached to a 19" (big at the time) LCD for desk use. I'm not second guessing the awesomeness of the iPad, but when I read the superlatives about the browsing experience, I wonder if that's coming from a browsing experience as awesome as mine (1080x1920 dedicated screen).
Higher res ≠ Better web browsing experience.

Let's do a test. Open your browser to occupy your entire LCD. Log into, say, Facebook. Observe & report.

Speaking of Facebook, your *own* superlatives about your "awesome browsing experience" would be more appropriate there, no?

Kthx!
 

Bodhi395

macrumors 6502a
Jul 23, 2008
817
0
I'm already a convert and plan to get 1 or 2 iPads next time I'm back home stateside. But I'm also a pixel counting real estate snob (see sig.).

I theorize that maybe part of what you guys like is using portrait mode for browsing because you haven't this much before? I have 2 portrait 22" 1080p Monitors flanking my (landscape) 30". One of the 22" monitors is strictly a Safari display, running 1080x1920. I'm sure touching and pinch zooming and whatnot is nice - I have a 3GS and am convinced I'll like the 10" version - but is it really so much better than 2 million pixels in portrait orientation?

I used to have a laptop with a 10.2" XGA display and I only kept it 6 months - and it was attached to a 19" (big at the time) LCD for desk use. I'm not second guessing the awesomeness of the iPad, but when I read the superlatives about the browsing experience, I wonder if that's coming from a browsing experience as awesome as mine (1080x1920 dedicated screen).

You're just getting way too caught up in the numbers. The iPad screen looks beautiful, that's all there is to it. Don't worry so much about pixal density!
 

mashoutposse

macrumors 6502
Dec 13, 2003
340
0
IPad browsing is awesome because it's large enough to provide the full experience while being portable and controlled by touch. It's really that simple.
 

gwynne

macrumors 68000
Mar 11, 2010
1,815
8
Ugh. Nothing gives me eyestrain faster than excessive monitor real estate right up in your face. It's making my eyes hurt just thinking about it. Bigger ain't always better.
 

ClaireL

macrumors 6502a
Apr 4, 2010
523
0
New Jersey
YES, browsing with the iPad's gorgeous large screen is a joy and a lot more fun. Of course if you spend long hours browsing without resting your eyes, you will get eyestrain.
 

diabolic

macrumors 68000
Jun 13, 2007
1,572
1
Austin, Texas
when I read the superlatives about the browsing experience, I wonder if that's coming from a browsing experience as awesome as mine (1080x1920 dedicated screen).
Browsing with the touchscreen on the iPad is a completely different experience. I enjoy it more, and I've got a 3 monitor setup with larger monitors, so the answer is yes.
 

MacBoobsPro

macrumors 603
Jan 10, 2006
5,116
6
Its the entire iPad package that creates the better experience. not just a larger screen or multitouch.
 

BruiserBear

macrumors 6502a
Jul 24, 2008
562
434
I'm still trying to figure out if the purpose of this thread is so the original poster could brag about this monster monitor setup, or if he's actually curious about the iPad browsing experience.


Obviously a 10" iPad screen is not going to compare to your 3 screens in your face, OMG isn't it crazy, setup in your home. But then again, you can't touch your giant screen setup.

The bottom line is this. If you enjoy browsing on your iPhone, this is a more responsive, mature, and enjoyable version of that.
 

bossxii

macrumors 68000
Nov 9, 2008
1,749
0
Kansas City
Comparing my iPad to my 27" iMac, the end result is I use my iPad 95% of the time now for browsing. At the highest resolution on the iMac most text is to small to read and most web pages are not formatted for the wide screen so you end up with huge dead area's on the sides. The ease of use with the iPad to zoom in or tap a pic to go full screen, rotate to fill the screen etc... Not to mention that fact i can browse anywhere I want, in the house or out of the house. (Hooked up my mifi unit)

So yes, bottom line for me is the freedom to do what I want, where I want, without the restrictions of a traditional desktop computer with a mouse and keyboard. Sure their are trade off's, but I'm more than happy to make them for the ease of use and the flexibility it gives me.

The 27" has it's uses for my job, but when I want to relax and just take in content the iPad has proven to be the perfect gadget to do so. I think people trying to 100% replace their computers will be disappointed as the iPhone OS and the iPad's hardware are not to that point. It has it's limitations, if your not delusional to think it's the "laptop/desktop" replacement, it's very enjoyable to use.
 

Pressure

macrumors 68040
May 30, 2006
3,905
228
Denmark
I cringe at the thought of a full screen browser window...ugh, why would you want the broweser to fill the entire screen on your desktop computer?

That is counter-intuitive!
 

vini-vidi-vici

macrumors 6502
Jan 7, 2010
416
0
resolution matters less

The thing that makes the iPad browsing experience so remarkable is that it's very easy to zoom in/out on things and scroll around. When you browse on a traditional browser, you're locked-into the screen width that author chose. But, with the iPad, that screen width is always "full screen width". Plus, it's easy to zoom in/out to get where you want, or take a closer look at something.

Similarly with font sizes... Sure, you can increase font sizes with traditional browsers, but that usually messes up the formatting. With the iPad, everything simply scales up - not just the fonts. This is huge...
 

Maclee2010

macrumors member
Mar 11, 2010
46
0
Louisville, KY
Comparing my iPad to my 27" iMac, the end result is I use my iPad 95% of the time now for browsing. At the highest resolution on the iMac most text is to small to read and most web pages are not formatted for the wide screen so you end up with huge dead area's on the sides. The ease of use with the iPad to zoom in or tap a pic to go full screen, rotate to fill the screen etc... Not to mention that fact i can browse anywhere I want, in the house or out of the house. (Hooked up my mifi unit)

So yes, bottom line for me is the freedom to do what I want, where I want, without the restrictions of a traditional desktop computer with a mouse and keyboard. Sure their are trade off's, but I'm more than happy to make them for the ease of use and the flexibility it gives me.

The 27" has it's uses for my job, but when I want to relax and just take in content the iPad has proven to be the perfect gadget to do so. I think people trying to 100% replace their computers will be disappointed as the iPhone OS and the iPad's hardware are not to that point. It has it's limitations, if your not delusional to think it's the "laptop/desktop" replacement, it's very enjoyable to use.
This describes it exactly. A very easy to use, robust experience. iPad is not intended to replace something we already have, but it is redefining what we even thought that we would need in a new fresh and fun way.My biggest complaint with it, I can not put it down once I start relaxing with it. So much to do and so little time! ---> Apps, Books, Tunes, Videos, Mail, Web........
 

profets

macrumors 601
Mar 18, 2009
4,442
4,151
I cringe at the thought of a full screen browser window...ugh, why would you want the broweser to fill the entire screen on your desktop computer?

That is counter-intuitive!
i don't usually open browser window to max the screen, but what the OP mentions sounds good. he's got the monitor in portrait, so the width is 1080pixels and height is 1920. 1080 is a good width for browser window, and why not max the length of the window? most webpages we scroll down anyway no?
 

trssho

macrumors 6502
May 24, 2009
408
37
Big real estate monitors are ideal for watching movies, or graphics programs. Try putting those 3 50 pound monitors on your lap next time your on the can. HA!:eek:
 

samiznaetekto

macrumors 65816
Dec 26, 2009
1,016
22
I theorize that maybe part of what you guys like is using portrait mode for browsing because you haven't this much before? I have 2 portrait 22" 1080p Monitors flanking my (landscape) 30". One of the 22" monitors is strictly a Safari display, running 1080x1920. I'm sure touching and pinch zooming and whatnot is nice - I have a 3GS and am convinced I'll like the 10" version - but is it really so much better than 2 million pixels in portrait orientation?
I have similar setup - 30" in landscape + 2x24" in portrait (both on one side of the big monitor, in kinda "open book" configuration). This setup screams for web browsing. Reading long pages on portrait monitors, watching videos on landscape monitor. Fast, beautiful, efficient. It all flies under my fingers.

I tried iPad at the store and was not impressed with the browsing experience. Pixel density on iPad is noticeable lower than on iPhone, so if you open macrumors in portrait mode, the text in the middle column is not very legible - many letters blur together due to font smoothing. If you zoom in on the center column, scrolling vertically and keeping the column centered is tricky as it tends to drift left or right during finger swipes. On heavier sites like gizmodo.com, expect to see a lot of checkerboxing as you scroll. Caching sucks like on iPhone: click the link, load the page, click Back, pages always reloads from scratch. Multiple page management sucks - why don't they do tabs like on desktop Safari?

Conclusion: when you're not tired sitting at your desk, desktop web browsing with multiple monitors is superb, iPad's is silly in comparison. When tired or on the road, iPad is ok (but could be much better).
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,986
I'd take the intimate experience any day. There is something about being able to touch and manipulate content so naturally that is just, I really don't know the word for it.
 

sanPietro98

macrumors 6502a
May 30, 2008
641
1
28.416834,-81.581214
Moving your finger across a 10" display is much quicker/easier/better than moving it across a 24" display.

I love the iPad browsing experience. It is more intuitive and natural to "touch" the display rather than using a mouse/display combo.
 

samiznaetekto

macrumors 65816
Dec 26, 2009
1,016
22
Moving your finger across a 10" display is much quicker/easier/better than moving it across a 24" display.
No it's not. With a good mouse (with sensitivity and acceleration), you reach any point almost instantly with just a small movement of your hand. With touch, you have to move your whole arm. Then the links are oftentimes tiny and surrounded by other links, so you have to pinch zoom first and then tap. And as you pinch, the page sometimes drifts and you have to counteract it, too. And sometimes taps do not register on the first try.

I love the iPad browsing experience. It is more intuitive and natural to "touch" the display rather than using a mouse/display combo.
Mouse/display combo browsing is so much faster and efficient.

Of course, on the go, in bed, on the toilet - iPad is the way to go.
 

Runt888

macrumors 6502a
Nov 17, 2008
837
25
If you zoom in on the center column, scrolling vertically and keeping the column centered is tricky as it tends to drift left or right during finger swipes.
If you double-tap to zoom in on the center column, it's very difficult to scroll sideways accidentally.

Multiple page management sucks - why don't they do tabs like on desktop Safari?
Personally I like how mobile safari does multiple pages. With a 10" screen, I don't want a bar of tabs taking up space all of the time.
 

diabolic

macrumors 68000
Jun 13, 2007
1,572
1
Austin, Texas
I tried iPad at the store and was not impressed with the browsing experience. Pixel density on iPad is noticeable lower than on iPhone, so if you open macrumors in portrait mode, the text in the middle column is not very legible - many letters blur together due to font smoothing. If you zoom in on the center column, scrolling vertically and keeping the column centered is tricky as it tends to drift left or right during finger swipes. On heavier sites like gizmodo.com, expect to see a lot of checkerboxing as you scroll. Caching sucks like on iPhone: click the link, load the page, click Back, pages always reloads from scratch.
Sorry, but this just isn't true. MacRumors looks great on an iPad, and even with my older eyes the text in the middle column is crisp and easily readable with no zooming. I can post an image of it if you need it, if can get one in focus using my phone camera.

Scrolling is much easier than on the iPhone, and is actually easier than scrolling with a mouse or keyboard. Touch on the iPad is VERY responsive. I can't remember having to double touch something because it didn't respond. Not even once. Maybe the demo iPads at the store are getting beat up already. :)

Gizmodo.com has no checkerboarding at all when you scroll. When I was testing the other day, I was able to have 6 sites loaded in Safari with no reloading when I jump back and forth (Engadget, Gizmodo, MacRumors, MSN, and Yahoo).
 

samiznaetekto

macrumors 65816
Dec 26, 2009
1,016
22
If you double-tap to zoom in on the center column, it's very difficult to scroll sideways accidentally.
Absolutely (I know this from iPhone). But scrolling this zoomed-in column by many screens down just sucks as it tends to drift left or right and after a big swipe you oftentimes need to do a shorter horizontal swipe to bring the column back.

Besides this reason, scrolling long pages on iPhone or iPad just sucks - some pages require 50 or so swipes to get to the bottom! (why don't they make a scroll loupe in Safari like in iPad's Pages? or plain vanilla scrollbar - surely iPad has enough resolution to fit a 16-pixel-wide scrollbar?)

Personally I like how mobile safari does multiple pages. With a 10" screen, I don't want a bar of tabs taking up space all of the time.
Note how the address/toolbar is scrolled out of the view if you're scroll the page down. The tabs will not take much space and will scroll out of the view together with the address bar.