Thats overkill, soooo much. Thats better than my 24" monitor. Is that really needed for a 10" tablet? Maybe like 1280x960, or something to that effect, but I mean...thats such a waste. Not to mention it will have a rough time playing games. ARM CPU's are advancing incredibly fast, and a Tegra 3 CPU can actually handle this res (it could do 30 FPS+ playback on a 2560x1600...), but its just not needed. Maybe not even possible.
[citation][nom]happyballz[/nom]You better have some skinny-ass fingers to navigate that resolution on a small screen. Either that or icons should be 200% larger then they are now.@Alidan A lot of GPUs can run "higher-resolution" but at what FPS and if you actually use many textures or triangles in models etc then you need more power fo-sho.[/citation]
I'd assume the icons would be higher resolution, or stretched more to be the same size. So there would be no problem there. Only problem is how are IPAD1/2 games/apps gonna look on it?
Personally, if I had the money I'd buy a Asus Transformer.
Let's not wet our pants over this Apple 'retina' display stuff again. The (small by today's standards) iphone display at 3.54" (1.96" x 2.94") has a pixel density of 326ppi. A phone with a 480x800 display at this same size has a pixel density of 264ppi. The difference is less than 24%. It's not as though it's double or something like the marketing would have you believe. I'm happier with a larger display in any case. I don't hold the phone 6" from my face, so I can't see the difference.
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]How about they make the resolution 1920x1080And widescreenDUH![/citation]
Widescreen, especially 16:9, isn't really an advantage on displays this small.
4:3 is better for surfing the web and reading documents.
Forget tablets, when are we going to see higher density desktop monitors? 2048x1536 existed in the CRT era yet we use lower resolutions today. The highest screen resolution available only on 30" monitors sold for insane prices is 2560x1600, which is only 64 lines higher and completely unaffordable. The newer 30" models are actually worse at 2560x1440! If it's going to be 16:9 (which I hate BTW), it should have progressed closer to 3840x2160 by now and become affordable... I don't care about movie playback, higher resolution is for better work experience.
Say what you will about Apple, their Macs are actually at the forefront of monitor technology with 2560x1440 on 27" monitors in their AIO iMac...