Panasonic's 20-inch Windows 8 tablet to have 3840x2560 resolution

At CES 2013 in January, Panasonic surprised the attendees by showing off a 20-inch Windows 8-based tablet that it claimed had a 4K screen resolution. No other information about the tablet was revealed at the time. Today, Microsoft offered up a new nugget of info about the still unnamed tablet, but it's a doozy.

In a post on its Extreme Windows blog, the company said it showed off the Panasonic tablet as part of last week's National Association of Broadcasters. The blog revealed that the actual resolution of the tablet will be 3840x2560, which is actually slightly larger than the normal 4K resolution of 3840x2160. The blog also said the aspect ratio of the tablet will be 15x10.

The blog's author says that he got a chance to play with the Panasonic tablet and claimed that he was surprised at how thin and light it was, despite its 20-inch size, adding, "I would consider it to be a very thin if it were just a display with no PC inside!" There's an image that shows one side of the tablet, which indeed makes the tablet look rather slim

So when is this super-sized but also super-thin Windows 8 tablet coming out? Microsoft's blog labeled it as "soon-to-be-released" so hopefully we won't have to wait much longer, although we expect that it will also have a pretty high end price tag.

Source: Microsoft | Images via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft debunks rumors of hackers causing Xbox Live outage

Next Story

Dish Network to Sprint: Merge with us and forget Softbank

42 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

15" at that res would work as long as the bevel was as much as on a iPhone.

I'd only b willing to pay 2k max. And would need ssd 256 + 1 tb normal HHd.

I'm still waiting on a good quality AND good price monitor that is more than 1080p...

It's crazy, you go in a BestBuy, you see those big 27" LCD and.... 1080p. Wow...

2 things:

Never buy a monitor from Best Buy
There is small handful of 2560x1600 or x1440 good monitors out there at good prices. I paid $750 for mine. You do have to pay to play though. I don't find $750-$1000 expensive. It baffles me when I see people with $2000 systems with $150 monitor to compliment it.

The blog revealed that the actual resolution of the tablet will be 3840x2560, which is actually slightly larger than the normal 4K resolution of 3840x2160

I hope that was a joke
3840x2560 == 9830400 pixels
3840x2160 == 8294400 pixels

Or a difference of 1536000 pixels. Being that a 720p display is 921600 pixels, this "slightly larger" difference is 1.66 times larger than a entire 720 display.

While this is true, 4K (3840x2160) has 9 times the number of pixels of 720p. Adding the extra pixels makes it 10.66 times, which I would say is a slight increase. Its like adding a £1000 to £1,000,000 would only be a slight increase.

That resolution's aspect ratio is also known as 3:2, which is the native aspect ratio of photographs, so pretty nice tablet if you edit photos.

is this battery/mobile by any chance? at that thickness id be very surprised and impressed if it was (and had more than 35minutes battery life!)

I'm guessing this has a market in art and engineering where the bigger screen and high res can be an advantage when you need the extra detail in images. Hmm, medical can also benefit but we are talking 20" and that's pretty big for a tablet.

As I said in another thread, you need to crank the resolution up for those honking big ass tiles (that serve no purpose, and are mostly a waste of space).

runningnak3d said,
As I said in another thread, you need to crank the resolution up for those honking big ass tiles (that serve no purpose, and are mostly a waste of space).

Cool story, bro. Cause all anyone ever does on their computer is sit on their home screen, right?

mrp04 said,

Cool story, bro. Cause all anyone ever does on their computer is sit on their home screen, right?

Well, apparently that is what Microsoft would LIKE. However, when I (and most people it would seem) are trying to launch a program, we don't need those big ass pieces of **** in our way. Yes, I can unpin crap, but I shouldn't have to. Metro WAS NOT A ****ING IMPROVEMENT for desktops....

runningnak3d said,

Well, apparently that is what Microsoft would LIKE. However, when I (and most people it would seem) are trying to launch a program, we don't need those big ass pieces of **** in our way. Yes, I can unpin crap, but I shouldn't have to. Metro WAS NOT A ****ING IMPROVEMENT for desktops....


mrp04 is right. You're not going to be sitting on the tiles for very long, so the resolution doesn't matter there. Your other argument about Metro in general is subjective and doesn't really apply to tablet form factors.

runningnak3d said,
As I said in another thread, you need to crank the resolution up for those honking big ass tiles (that serve no purpose, and are mostly a waste of space).

The start screen is pixel-density aware... if you have a higher resolution screen, the tiles won't be any smaller...

Crimson Rain said,

Owned.

It is Microsoft that is "owned" because that is just effing ridiculous. YAY! I get three choices of tile size, and even the smallest one will be effing HUGE. Nice. Talk about fail, fail, and more fail.

runningnak3d said,

It is Microsoft that is "owned" because that is just effing ridiculous. YAY! I get three choices of tile size, and even the smallest one will be effing HUGE. Nice. Talk about fail, fail, and more fail.


Butthurt much?

Such a waste of space, I have 54 tiles of apps that I can easily see and get to compared to how many apps could I get to before..... Maybe 20 full of taskbar and 8 on start menu. I would say that is good use of real estate organized nicely. Much better than a desktop full of hard to read icons.

runningnak3d said,

Well, apparently that is what Microsoft would LIKE. However, when I (and most people it would seem) are trying to launch a program, we don't need those big ass pieces of **** in our way. Yes, I can unpin crap, but I shouldn't have to. Metro WAS NOT A ****ING IMPROVEMENT for desktops....


Such a giant difference from the desktop man! Instead of a bunch of random icons that all have their own unique weird shapes and sizes... To an uniform design where at least the difference between all the icons is much better. And not limited to the size of your screen but even scrollable to the sides..

The start screen is nothing more then the evolution of the Destkop that has been unchanged, even lost features over the years since Windows 95.

Yep, and it supports the scenario that I see time and time again with people using the Desktop for shortcuts. Only after awhile, you get so many you can't read them or group them very well (without Fences). Metro Start does all of that.

I think people who are whining forget the horror of the original Start Menu. I am tempted to make a video to show how superior the metro start is to the old.

I would be happy with a 250 PPI 24 inch Monitor at home. But I don't see that happen for years from now or at least at a price I can put down on.

theyarecomingforyou said,
You want a 20" monitor? The resolution is great but I wouldn't want to downsize from my current 30" monitor.

I work very well qith a 15.1" 1080p laptop (my eyesight still allows me to do that

Arceles said,
my god... I want a monitor of that size with that resolution....
Put it on a stand, plug a keyboard and mous in it and you're ready to go!

theyarecomingforyou said,
You want a 20" monitor? The resolution is great but I wouldn't want to downsize from my current 30" monitor.

For me I value resolution over screen size. Went from a 17 inch screen with 1920x1080, to a 32 inch screen at 1920x1080, and then to a 27 inch 2560x1440. I would happily step down to 20 inches for that resolution.

Arceles said,
my god... I want a monitor of that size with that resolution....

that's the first thing i thought of when i saw this article! but maybe 24" monitor

This should be obvious, but if you have a 20" monitor with this res, things will be too small no matter how good your eyesight is. Simply because you sit further away from a monitor than you do with a tablet (and you don't seem to understand just how high this res is). Even if you could still see stuff ok it will give you eye strain problems. Unlike Metro UI the desktop on Windows (and most OS's) does not scale well when you increase the DPI setting.

30" at this res would be perfect, as it will still be hard to see the individual pixels from a typical sitting distance of 1.7 - 3 foot.

Edited by W32.Backdoor.KillAV.E, Apr 15 2013, 8:34pm :

theyarecomingforyou said,
You want a 20" monitor? The resolution is great but I wouldn't want to downsize from my current 30" monitor.

a 30" monitor is a ergonomic nightmare.

Brony said,

a 30" monitor is a ergonomic nightmare.

I have two 30" monitors and working and multitasking on them is a much better and easier experience than with 24" or under. And when gaming i just sit back and relax, as i don't need to be as close.