Text doesn’t look great, either: Characters appear fuzzy, although that could be the fault of the display, WebOS’s text rendering, or a combination of the two. And the display has a very visible air gap between the LCD and the glass layer, which produces a distracting glare. The TouchPad supports 18-bit color–a tad better than Google Android 3.0/3.1 tablets’ 16-bit color, but less than the iPad’s 24-bit color.
It may be an IPS display, but that doesn’t help its readability and color handling. The TouchPad’s screen disappoints in multiple ways. If anything, it’s merely poised to play catch-up with the slimline Apple iPad 2 and Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1. However, I’ve noted the chunky measurements of the Motorola Xoom (released in February 2011) and other tablets, including the soon-to-ship Toshiba Thrive (which has a similar depth and weight, but at least offers on-board ports that expand its capabilities), and the TouchPad does nothing to innovate here. The 0.54-inch thick, 1.6-pound, plastic-encased TouchPad might have competed in the tablet market last summer, just months after the release of the first Apple iPad, but in summer 2011 it feels dated. Still, the goal is to nail it down from the outset, not to mess around with updates after launch.
Perhaps so–that would certainly explain some of what I’ve been seeing on tablets. So what is the deal with image rendering on tablets? Although I don’t have a straight answer to that question, developers I’ve spoken with have all agreed that image rendering (and text rendering, for that matter) is akin to a programming black art. HP reps told me that it was looking into the rendering issues I called out let’s hope that an over-the-air update addresses these problems soon. Google got its act together and improved its Gallery performance in Android 3.1, though I’d posit that the color handling and sharpness could be improved even further.
0 kommentar(er)
