Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Handhelds

Dell Reveals Specs For the Looking Glass Tablet 174

Posted by CmdrTaco from the not-on-purpose dept.
adeelarshad82 writes "Dell hasn't officially unveiled its Looking Glass tablet, but it's on record at the FCC. The spec sheets reveal a device with a 7-inch screen, 3G and Wi-Fi connectivity, and an SD card slot. The Looking Glass will likely be announced at next week's Consumer Electronics Show (CES), which is sure to have no shortage of new tablets. Dell filed the documents for device approval by the FCC on December 17. The Looking Glass is expected to be one of the first devices to pack an Nvidia Tegra 2 processor, a powerful chip for mobile devices that can support both typical functions (like e-mail and Web browsing) as well as advanced graphics — all while preserving battery life."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dell Reveals Specs For the Looking Glass Tablet More

Dell Reveals Specs For the Looking Glass Tablet

Comments Filter:

  • ergh (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld@ g m a i l . com> on Tuesday December 28, 2010 @02:53PM (#34690440) Homepage
    Why are all these ipad competitors doing 7 inch screens?
    • Dunno for certain. But the Amazon Kindle 3 has a 6.1" diagonal screen--and the Kindle 3 will fit in the rear pocket of (some) pants (including the pair I have on now--I just tried it to confirm it). So maybe it has to do with something like this.

      • (Continuing my OP)

        Maybe the designers wanted it to also fit in a purse, jacket pocket, motorcycle tank bag, automotive glove box, etc.

        Also with increasing screen size comes added cost, weight, thickness, and greater area susceptible to damage (e.g., cracking due to a drop, etc.)

    • iPad vs. everyone else (Score:5, Informative)

      by Toe, The ( 545098 ) on Tuesday December 28, 2010 @03:04PM (#34690592)

      Just FYI, a recent business IT survey [investorplace.com] shows interest in iPads stomping all other tablets: about four fifths of companies planning to buy tablets next quarter plan on buying iPads. And it shows satisfaction with iPads vastly outstripping other companies' offerings. (It's also extremely interesting to note that 38% of IT respondants using iPads say they are using them for laptop replacement.)

      In other relevant iPad news, holiday sales numbers seem to show iPads squashing competitors [macobserver.com] in the consumer channel.

      • What competitors? The only viable competition this moment is the Samsung Galaxy, which has been out, what, weeks?

        Of course businesses that are buying tablets right now are buying iPads, right now. It's the only viable product, right now.

        Let's talk later when we're actually comparing apples to apples (so to speak).

        • Re:iPad vs. everyone else (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Lunix Nutcase ( 1092239 ) on Tuesday December 28, 2010 @04:47PM (#34691724)

          That's funny because before the iPad came out all Slashdotters could do was point out how the iPad was nothing new and how tablets had been around for ages, etc etc. And now that the iPad has pretty much owned the entire market the excuse is that "there are no viable competitors". Would it kill you people to admit you were wrong about the iPad and it's likely success? This is like the failed Slashdot predictions about the potential success of the iPod and iPhone all over again.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by nomadic ( 141991 )
            I don't remember seeing all slashdotters saying the ipad would fail COMMERCIALLY, just that it was nothing really special.

          • I'm not sure who you're talking to. I don't recall saying that the iPad was nothing new. Do you always carry on conversations like this?

            But if you want, I'll say it now. Tablets *have* been around for ages. The iPad as a concept really is nothing new. What made it different was (1) a significant improvement in usability over anything that had come out before, and (2) having an app store easily accessible from the device.

            That does not mean that the iPad will be the only tablet worth buying until th

        • Well, it's right there in TFA: Dell Streak, HP Slate, RIM Playbook, and others. At least those first two can be purchased now. It's not Apple's fault that the others aren't ready yet. (Well, it is Apple's fault that they created the market and thus got to it first: before iPad, everyone thought tablets were a stupid micro-niche.)

          But more to the point, the survey isn't about what businesses are buying right now (except for the satisfaction index), the referenced question is precisely: "Who is the manufacture

          • > It's not Apple's fault that the others aren't ready yet.

            What a bizarre thing to say.

            You know... this isn't a contest. Apple was first to market for this generation of tablets. (The first usable generation, in my opinion.) The question becomes: What other choices will we have? The question is not: Who has the most sales?

            > "Despite the flood of new Tablets hitting the market, the Apple iPad remains the overwhelming choice of business buyers going forward - with nearly four-in-five (78%) cor

            • The question becomes: What other choices will we have? The question is not: Who has the most sales?

              Those are both valid questions. Which is more relevant and important depends what the purpose of asking the question is.

    • Re:ergh (Score:4, Informative)

      by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Tuesday December 28, 2010 @03:04PM (#34690594)

      Why are all these ipad competitors doing 7 inch screens?

      You can't easily hold an iPod with one hand for any length of time. Have you seen the Galaxy Tab TV commercial? They make a point of showing the tablet being held one-handed.

      For some of us, the iPad is too big. I'm just waiting for a true tablet version of Android. I'd get a 7" iPad, but Jobs has already said that isn't happening.

      • You can't easily hold an iPod with one hand for any length of time.

        Argh - s/iPod/iPad/

      • You can't easily hold an iPod with one hand for any length of time.

        That's why God made the Kindle.

        For all other uses you don't need to hold it one hand for any length of time.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by 0123456 ( 636235 )

          For all other uses you don't need to hold it one hand for any length of time.

          Pr0n?

        • That's why God made the Kindle.

          Bezos? Oh, wait, that God. (Sorry.)

        • You can't easily hold an iPod with one hand for any length of time.

          That's why God made the Kindle.

          For all other uses you don't need to hold it one hand for any length of time.

          I love my Kindle; but speaking as someone who's used iSSH on an iPod Touch and have also used it on an iPad I must disagree with you. For commuting, the iPad's keyboard and screen size really don't work well unless you're using it relatively passively. A smaller screen still allows thumb typing while holding the tablet up.

          • I haven't used terminals at all from the iPad but I find typing a lot easier on the iPad than the touch/iPhone - when it's sitting on a lap. I agree upright typing on an iPad is a lot harder.

        • Walking around and engaging in input activities with the tablet involves holding it in your off hand for long periods of time while jabbing and stroking at it with your primary.

          The first tablet computer anyone took seriously was the GRiDPad 1910, a PC-class clone with a 640x400 backlit monochrome display. At least one auto manufacturer used them for inventory control, as did at least some organizations within the US armed forces (with a custom magnesium case.) I own one of the plastic ones and the thing is

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HRbnjR ( 12398 )
      10" minimum - to comfortably read a page of text in landscape without zooming. I bought an iPad to tide me over until I can get a decent Android tablet (for reading websites from the sofa), and from my experience I wouldn't go smaller or lower resolution than that - I already have to squint on a lot of sites. If they can make a 4" screen for the Samsung Galaxy at 800x480, I don't think 1920x1080 on a 10" or 11" tablet is that unreasonable (I'm willing to pay accordingly).

      • Re:ergh (Score:5, Interesting)

        by swb ( 14022 ) on Tuesday December 28, 2010 @03:37PM (#34691008)

        I think you're right. IMHO, the iPad display needs to be higher resolution. And if they ever made a 12" or even better, a 14" version, I'd be all over it -- magazines at actual magazine size, and with "retina" resolution, pretty darn comparable to magazine look. And much improved newspaper layout as well and better web site browsing (still a tad too much zoom & pan).

        About the only other thing I'd also do would be more CPU -- I find some web sites with heavy javascript make typing and interaction laggy. OK, one more thing -- how about 128 or 256MB flash?

        Overall, though, I really like my iPad.

        • Crunch the numbers on it --- 326 ppi even on the iPad's 10.4" display is _way_ more display bandwidth than any graphics chipset currently available, let alone feasible for portable use.

          William

          • If I can get 1920x1080 on a shitty Intel integrated, why can't they just sit down and make something that allows it on a portable device?
            The question is mindboggeling!

            • You could have that, if you're willing to accept the tradeoff in battery life / performance.

              A Retina-display-like 326 ppi would require 2529 x 1897 pixels for an iPad's 10.4" display --- 13.7MB for display alone (up from 2.25MB for 1024 x 768) --- unfortunately, that's not happening in the near future.

              William

          • Even something like 1600x1200 (which would be ~200ppi for iPad) would be a huge improvement. As it is, pixels are really very noticeable on iPad screen. What more, as it uses the same font rendering as OS X, which does a lot of anti-aliasing, small text looks very blurry around the letters, which is very distracting.

      • > 10" minimum - to comfortably read a page of text in landscape without zooming.

        Demonstrably untrue. I do it all the time with my 55 year old eyes on my 4" Droid X.

        A 7" tablet, that actually fits in a coat pocket, would be just about perfect. 10" (9.7 actually) is too big. You might as well carry a notebook.

        Which just goes to prove, there's more then one market out there for tablets.

        • Are you saying you can actually read an 8.5" by 11" PDF originally intended for printing on a 4" screen without panning and zooming? That's what I use mine for, I have to read screenplays and the Kindle just never cut it. Works great for manuals too; I just can't see how you could get a page of that legible on a small screen.

          • Have not specifically tried it with a PDF, but have used it to read Word docs with "docs to go", and I'm using it to read Slashdot unzoomed right now.

            I'm not saying it's ideal, but it is possible. I prefer not to use zoom because I don't like panning back and forth while I'm reading.

            The 7" Galaxy tab is 1024X600, and reading a document in landscape (using vertical scrolling) is fine. Dunno enough yet about the Dell tablet to know how it'll perform, but 7" is demonstrably a workable form factor.

        • A 7" tablet, that actually fits in a coat pocket, would be just about perfect. 10" (9.7 actually) is too big.

          Do you shrink your fingers?

          • Can you type on an iPhone?

            • It's not just typing. It's the actual use of apps on the machine.

              And yes, btw, I can type with half my screen obscured by OSK. I use both an iPad and an iPhone and I can tell you without any reservation that screen real estate on a touch-based device is valued differently from one using a mouse pointer. That is why Safari behaves differently on both devices.

        • A 7" tablet, that actually fits in a coat pocket, would be just about perfect. 10" (9.7 actually) is too big. You might as well carry a notebook.

          I live in a warm climate and never wear a coat. My iPad fits in my back pants pocket just fine. I carry it there all the time. I just have to remember not to sit on it.

          To me, the iPad is the right size because it's big enough to read and slim enough to be portable. A notebook or netbook wouldn't work as well since even the thinnnest is still too thick for me

          • seriously? how the hell do you dress? i work in a professional environment, i cant wear stupidly baggy jeans with huge pockets/cargo pants... 9.7 diagonal screen is just not a possibility...

            • I'm a lowly IT support tech - the guy who plugs in your monitor. I dress in an issued golf shirt over these cargo pants [511tactical.com]. The back pockets are very wide - from the side seam on the leg all the way across to the center-line seam at my spine. That means that (back_pocket_width)==(waist_measurement)/4. The back pockets are also deep, running all the way from waist to crotch level.

              Anyone with pants like that who's at least 40 inches in the waist can put an iPad in their back pocket. You could actually be

      • "10" minimum - to comfortably read a page of text in landscape without zooming."

        Reading isn't the issue - as others have pointed out you can read pages on a much smaller screen if the resolution is high enough and also if the device renders the page accordingly. However, try actually using a web site using a small touch screen and it is a different matter. On my iPad I can just get along with most pages when I use it in landscape mode but if it was any smaller I often wouldn't be able to hit links accurat

      • 10" minimum - to comfortably read a page of text in landscape without zooming.

        Assuming the page of text is designed to read on a letter/A4 page, a ~14" display is necessary to display the full page at the size it is designed to be viewed. A 10" screen is about right for typical trade paperback size pages.

        How much reduction below design size is tolerable will vary from person to person, but many documents are already at the limit of readability at their design size, so any smaller device screen will require zooming and panning for a substantial fraction of users, even if it had the cl

    • Because the iPad is too big.

      If I wanted to lug around a device that big I'd get a netbook, which has USB and an SD card reader.

      The advantage of the tablet form factor is portability, and the ipad is a little too big and heavy to be a significant win in this area.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jimicus ( 737525 )

      How do you think they get the price down?

    • Re:ergh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dhovis ( 303725 ) on Tuesday December 28, 2010 @03:21PM (#34690810)
      Because, believe it or not, Apple came in at a price point that nobody could match without Apple's sales volume. The only way to under cut Apple's price is to reduce the screen size. By half, it turns out (7^2 = 49, 10^2 =100).

      • 7^2 is 5 and 10^2 is 8 where I come from

        :P

      • Because, believe it or not, Apple came in at a price point that nobody could match without Apple's sales volume. The only way to under cut Apple's price is to reduce the screen size. By half, it turns out (7^2 = 49, 10^2 =100).

        The ViewSonic G is the same price as an iPad wifi, with a 10.1" (1024x600) screen compared to the iPad's 9.7" (1024x768) screen. It is not alone among 10" Android tablets in being price competitive with the iPad.

        Its certainly hard for other manufacturers to price compete with Apple given Apple's beating everyone to the market and being able to leverage the App Store advantage, and superior consumer brand image. But its equally certainly not the case that 7" tablets are simply a matter of being the only thin

      • Because, believe it or not, Apple came in at a price point that nobody could match without Apple's sales volume. The only way to under cut Apple's price is to reduce the screen size. By half, it turns out (7^2 = 49, 10^2 =100).

        What do 49 & 100 have to do with anything? I think your understanding of screen size specs is failing.
        I'll help out:

        An iPad has a 9.7" 4:3 ratio screen, so that's 7.75" x 5.83" = 45.19 in^2

        A Galaxy Tab is a 7" 16:9.4 ratio screen (yeah, not 16:9 or 16:10, go figure), so that's 6.04" x 3.54" = 21.39 in^2

        So actually it's 21.39 / 45.19 * 100 = ~47.33% of the physical size, but as for pixel count it's 614400 / 786432 * 100 = 78.125% as many.

    • Cheapness and stupidity.

      7 inch screens are cheaper and less casing is cheaper too. Not to mention less batteries. The iPad is full of big batteries to get that long run time. Competitors will just skimp on the battery life and materials the wonder why their product isn't as well received.

      • iPad is fantastic with its battery life agreed, why cant the bastards do the same with the iphone? "slimmest smarphone" - bah, let me get by a day without needing a charger at home and at the office...

    • My guess is price, time to market, and uniqueness. 10" multi-touch screens are relatively new and maybe hard to manufacture in large quantities at the moment and maybe costly. Remember Apple probably worked on the iPad for a long time so they had time to line up their suppliers. Also if there was a critical component that is in short supply, Apple (like any manufacturer) would have locked up the supply.

      For example, when Apple first came out with the iPod, one of the distinguishing features of it was that

    • Why are all these ipad competitors doing 7 inch screens?

      They use the cheap mass produced screens already used in portable DVD players. This is why many of those 7 inch tablets are also 16:9 and not 4:3, which makes more sense.

    • Why are all these ipad competitors doing 7 inch screens?

      Not all the non-iPad tablets that have been announced, had specs leaked, or, for that matter, are already on the market have 7" screens.

      Some of them have 10" screens, like the iPad. Some of them have 7" screens. Some of them have bigger screens. Some of them have smaller screens.

      And the reason for the variety of screen sizes is because not every manufacturer thinks that 10 inches is the One True Size for tablets.

    • ill be able to fit a 7 inch tab in my suit jacket pocket, ipad, no chance...

    • Because they know that, at the best, they will be half as nice as the iPad and therefore must come in under $250.

  • Missing feature (Score:3)

    by Gerald ( 9696 ) on Tuesday December 28, 2010 @03:02PM (#34690552) Homepage

    Unless it includes a fully functional "Young Lady's Illustrated Primer" it's destined for failure.

  • Sorry for my ignorance regarding this tablet, but what OS is it planning to come with?

  • Meet the new crap.
    Same as the old crap.

  • vacuous ad copy? (Score:3)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Tuesday December 28, 2010 @03:25PM (#34690864) Homepage Journal
    a powerful chip for mobile devices that can support both typical functions (like e-mail and Web browsing) as well as advanced graphics — all while preserving battery life.

    This seems like ad copy meant to promote a technology that may or may not be successful. The mobile devices that have use the chip, the Kin and Zune, are not widely successful. The tablet that has used this chip, the Folio 100, has evidently been pulled from shelves and has required a firmware update to be minimally function. This is surprising as the chip uses the SOC model that all other tablets use. And there does not seem any cost saving for use the chip and Android, as the prices seems the same as an iPad.

    I am looking forward to the tablets, as a $300 tablet will revolutionize the way we interact, but I do not see such devices yet, and this chip does not seem to move the market forward in any meaningful way, other than in the area of meaningless jargon.

  • It appears most people want a bigger screen - the size of the iPad for example. The iPad's screen isn't big enough for me! I want a screen that is the size and shape of either A4 or 8.5x11. A true paper replacement. And it would need to be fairly high resolution, and speedy.

Slashdot Top Deals

"jackpot: you may have an unneccessary change record" -- message from "diff"

Close