Re: resolution preferences??
On Tuesday 10 June 2008 02:45:20 Carsten Haitzler wrote: lots of devices out there with the same specs - or much better. 800x480 @3.2 or even 2.8 are out there and selling. on shelves - from major manufacturers. Show me one with GSM and Linux. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
I'm sorry to break into your nice flamewar, but I've just wanted to ask: pro-QVGA people, are you serious? In two years (yep, that's when GTA03 will be released judging by GTA01-02) QVGA will be just like floppy drives on notebooks - totally non completive. And won't be because everybody *really needs* =VGA resolution and can't survive with lower one. It will be just because everybody on the block is hi-res. Same thing happened lots times in IT: remember ATA to SATA switch? Do you really think that home users wouldn't be able to stick with good old ATA? Quard core processors? New sockets? Usb 2.0 1.1 ? You think that we couldn't live without these upgrades? Making fonts bigger via lowering the screen resolution is total nonsense. And hi-res tranflective screens will be available in less than a year. Btw, QVGA won't cost much less (it doesn't now and in two years it could be, in fact, more expensive than VGA). ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Ilja O. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Btw, QVGA won't cost much less (it doesn't now and in two years it could be, in fact, more expensive than VGA). That has been especially true of flash drives - I remember seeing a 16MB flash drive that cost more then the same 32MB model. Cheers, Federico ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
The only reason for me considering the Freerunner is the VGA display. I don't car much about videos on portable devices, but I want a sharp large screen for navigation (maps), browsing (www), reading/composing (email). If people want video devices they can get plenty devices out there, but there is no device available with the display specs of the Freerunner. Keep it that way! ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:51:58 + (UTC) elektrolott [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: The only reason for me considering the Freerunner is the VGA display. I don't car much about videos on portable devices, but I want a sharp large screen for navigation (maps), browsing (www), reading/composing (email). If people want video devices they can get plenty devices out there, but there is no device available with the display specs of the Freerunner. Keep it that way! lots of devices out there with the same specs - or much better. 800x480 @3.2 or even 2.8 are out there and selling. on shelves - from major manufacturers. -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
When I first saw the Neo's screen I was amazed by how crisp the graphics were and the shine on the Openmoko logo looked real to me. The first thing I tried was the terminal (of course) and I was happy that the text could be zoomed, and was still readable. I am short sighted and have seen the graphics on the iPhone and they seemed ok, but this is the first phone display that I have been impressed with. I fully agree: QVGA: the minimum to be useable HVGA (iPhone): good enough VGA: impressive Nikolaus ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
On 6/6/08, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: convince me vga is incredibly more useful than qvga. convince me you all have amazing eyesight! :) i am doing this because i am trying to listen to the community and if given a choice - choose the right way based on what you guys think, but PLEASE, be practical, and honest. be honest with yourselves. this is not a my screen is higher dpi than your screen competition. it's about making a nice and usable device you want. if you ask for vga, but you really can't see the difference between qvga and vga, you're not being honest. you're just playing the spec numbers game. I have good eye sight and I believe many other people do, too. You don't need very good eye sight to see the difference but I guess you need it to fully make use of the high resolution. What do we not need VGA for? -Videos. The phone won't do VGA videos anyway and resolution isn't that important when watching videos. (See the popularity of YouTube...) -Finger applications. Displaying huge buttons in high resolution is beautiful but not useful. What do we need VGA for? -Ebook reading. I read Cory Doctorow's Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town in very tiny font on my Neo. It was a great experience. But even fonts that are a little bigger still profit a lot from the high resolution. -Web browsing. There are a lot of tricks to display web pages at low resolutions. I haven't seen anything that works well, though. VGA is the smallest resolution to do web browsing well. -Other things that use text (word processor, speadsheet, calendar, ...) and stylus applications in general. -Games. Not necessarily 3D games but things like OTTD. RTS on a handheld becomes usable at 480*320 and fun at 640*480. Since we don't have buttons, those are the games that are possible on current Neos. -Maps. The tiny map portions you can fit into 320*240 aren't really useful... -Comics. Again, 640*480 is the smalles resolution most comic pages become readable at. -Pictures. They can be displayed at QVGA but only at VGA they look perfect, because it's hard to see the individual pixels. Not being able to see the individual pixels is pretty much the point of the high resolution! -The text console. The terminal app is bad enough with the huge font it is set to at the moment. Way back it had a very tiny font that worked great. Can you imagine it at 320*240? I can't. What future OpenMoko devices need is a bigger screen area. Making the problem worse by decreasing the resolution to a quarter is not a good idea. 480*320 is the lowest resolution I could live with but I'd much rather have 800*480. When I get my Pandora, that's what I'll get used to. Ortwin ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 00:02:14 -0400 Steven Milburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: This question is probably just because I misunderstood something you said before, but I'll ask anyway :) If it is acceptable to use QVGA, couldn't that basically be done without any hardware changes? I believe I remember you saying the glamo does scaling, so couldn't you let SW treat the display as qvga, and just have the glamo scale it up? Or, is the question more about having qvga instead of the glamo (which leaves you back with the SDIO interface shortage)? we can just drive the vga screen at qvga. no need for scaling - just change the output at the lcd controller level. but it is a waste to pay for a vga screen when we won't use it. also it does look blocky. it isn't about glamo or not - it's separate to glamo entirely. simply - how important is a vga screen... really? how many people out there can really see the difference? be really honest. stop thinking my specs are bigger than your specs. scan u REALLY see all the pixels on a vga screen of that size. i bet to most people its all a blur - a qvga screen looks identical to them. only to a minority who have very good eyesight does it really make a difference, but this is just my bet. i'm asking the question - and hoping for real honest answers. --Steve On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:42 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:50:43 +0200 Marc Bantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: quick question - would you prefer a qvga lcd (save a bit of cost) since we'e going to need to software-drive all graphics - the fewer pixels you have to fill, the better for speed. i'm really tossing up if the speed of qvga is worth the loss of resolution. i'm just not sure. Would that be 320x240 (QVGA [1]) or 480x320? qvga is 320x240. wqvga... that's a whole world of resolutions (400x240, 432x240, 480x272, 480x320). :) I think the latter would be acceptable in terms of usability. OTOH it would also but it's not a drop-in replacement as its widescreen. we c ould go for 2.8 vga or 2.8 qvga. drop-in replacement. anything else mans new case/design etc. etc. also remember just getting supply of a screen is hard. you also need it at a decent physical size. i'm asking the question if going down to a (relatively) low resolution screen would be an ok compromise. - create extra maintenance cost for system and app themes one way or another we will need to be able to do multiple resolutions in the long-run. - narrow on-screen information for people with good eye-sight (granny won't be affected ;-) Sofar I haven't suffered from lacking graphic speed on my GTA01. It seemed that waiting for UI feedback was mainly cause by other background processes (e.g. SD-read or such) My interest are standard smartphone and geo apps and for those I'd rather go for resolution. again - it depends what you want to do. :) gta01 actually performance better in many ways graphically :) -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
The difference between the VGA screen of the Neo and the QVGA screens I have are very clear to me (with the VGA being clearly superior) when kept side by side. But for most of my activities including reading long emails the QVGA resolution is enough. So unless we have the processing power to run at least 25 FPS VGA video, I would be happy with a QVGA as there is bound to be a price and performance improvement. Rakshat On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 11:09 AM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 00:02:14 -0400 Steven Milburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: This question is probably just because I misunderstood something you said before, but I'll ask anyway :) If it is acceptable to use QVGA, couldn't that basically be done without any hardware changes? I believe I remember you saying the glamo does scaling, so couldn't you let SW treat the display as qvga, and just have the glamo scale it up? Or, is the question more about having qvga instead of the glamo (which leaves you back with the SDIO interface shortage)? we can just drive the vga screen at qvga. no need for scaling - just change the output at the lcd controller level. but it is a waste to pay for a vga screen when we won't use it. also it does look blocky. it isn't about glamo or not - it's separate to glamo entirely. simply - how important is a vga screen... really? how many people out there can really see the difference? be really honest. stop thinking my specs are bigger than your specs. scan u REALLY see all the pixels on a vga screen of that size. i bet to most people its all a blur - a qvga screen looks identical to them. only to a minority who have very good eyesight does it really make a difference, but this is just my bet. i'm asking the question - and hoping for real honest answers. --Steve On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:42 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:50:43 +0200 Marc Bantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: quick question - would you prefer a qvga lcd (save a bit of cost) since we'e going to need to software-drive all graphics - the fewer pixels you have to fill, the better for speed. i'm really tossing up if the speed of qvga is worth the loss of resolution. i'm just not sure. Would that be 320x240 (QVGA [1]) or 480x320? qvga is 320x240. wqvga... that's a whole world of resolutions (400x240, 432x240, 480x272, 480x320). :) I think the latter would be acceptable in terms of usability. OTOH it would also but it's not a drop-in replacement as its widescreen. we c ould go for 2.8 vga or 2.8 qvga. drop-in replacement. anything else mans new case/design etc. etc. also remember just getting supply of a screen is hard. you also need it at a decent physical size. i'm asking the question if going down to a (relatively) low resolution screen would be an ok compromise. - create extra maintenance cost for system and app themes one way or another we will need to be able to do multiple resolutions in the long-run. - narrow on-screen information for people with good eye-sight (granny won't be affected ;-) Sofar I haven't suffered from lacking graphic speed on my GTA01. It seemed that waiting for UI feedback was mainly cause by other background processes (e.g. SD-read or such) My interest are standard smartphone and geo apps and for those I'd rather go for resolution. again - it depends what you want to do. :) gta01 actually performance better in many ways graphically :) -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community -- -- Please use Firefox as your web browser. Its protects you from spyware and is also a very feature rich browser. www.firefox.com ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
Carsten, What app/situation you have in mind when you affirm than nobody can detect a the difference at half resolution? I have in mind a web browser a half resolution means double the scroll bars, I have in mind a pdf doc viewer, half resolution means I have to zoom in more the document to be readable, also a let you more useful surface to develop any app(more buttons, menu items) I'm wrong with all that thoughts? --- El vie, 6/6/08, Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: De: Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: Re: resolution preferences?? Para: List for Openmoko community discussion community@lists.openmoko.org CC: Steven Milburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: viernes, 6 junio, 2008 7:39 On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 00:02:14 -0400 Steven Milburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: This question is probably just because I misunderstood something you said before, but I'll ask anyway :) If it is acceptable to use QVGA, couldn't that basically be done without any hardware changes? I believe I remember you saying the glamo does scaling, so couldn't you let SW treat the display as qvga, and just have the glamo scale it up? Or, is the question more about having qvga instead of the glamo (which leaves you back with the SDIO interface shortage)? we can just drive the vga screen at qvga. no need for scaling - just change the output at the lcd controller level. but it is a waste to pay for a vga screen when we won't use it. also it does look blocky. it isn't about glamo or not - it's separate to glamo entirely. simply - how important is a vga screen... really? how many people out there can really see the difference? be really honest. stop thinking my specs are bigger than your specs. scan u REALLY see all the pixels on a vga screen of that size. i bet to most people its all a blur - a qvga screen looks identical to them. only to a minority who have very good eyesight does it really make a difference, but this is just my bet. i'm asking the question - and hoping for real honest answers. --Steve On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:42 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:50:43 +0200 Marc Bantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: quick question - would you prefer a qvga lcd (save a bit of cost) since we'e going to need to software-drive all graphics - the fewer pixels you have to fill, the better for speed. i'm really tossing up if the speed of qvga is worth the loss of resolution. i'm just not sure. Would that be 320x240 (QVGA [1]) or 480x320? qvga is 320x240. wqvga... that's a whole world of resolutions (400x240, 432x240, 480x272, 480x320). :) I think the latter would be acceptable in terms of usability. OTOH it would also but it's not a drop-in replacement as its widescreen. we c ould go for 2.8 vga or 2.8 qvga. drop-in replacement. anything else mans new case/design etc. etc. also remember just getting supply of a screen is hard. you also need it at a decent physical size. i'm asking the question if going down to a (relatively) low resolution screen would be an ok compromise. - create extra maintenance cost for system and app themes one way or another we will need to be able to do multiple resolutions in the long-run. - narrow on-screen information for people with good eye-sight (granny won't be affected ;-) Sofar I haven't suffered from lacking graphic speed on my GTA01. It seemed that waiting for UI feedback was mainly cause by other background processes (e.g. SD-read or such) My interest are standard smartphone and geo apps and for those I'd rather go for resolution. again - it depends what you want to do. :) gta01 actually performance better in many ways graphically :) -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community __ Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
Honestly, if the freerunner did not have VGA screen but QVGA, I would not buy it ! For me, VGA is a must have feature. As other said, there are plenty of QVGA devices. I don't want one of them because of the resolution. I have a Dell Axim X5 and I'm really sad about the QVGA resolution (in addition of the windows OS :( ) Please, please ... keep the VGA screen ! On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 15:39:05 +1000, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 00:02:14 -0400 Steven Milburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: This question is probably just because I misunderstood something you said before, but I'll ask anyway :) If it is acceptable to use QVGA, couldn't that basically be done without any hardware changes? I believe I remember you saying the glamo does scaling, so couldn't you let SW treat the display as qvga, and just have the glamo scale it up? Or, is the question more about having qvga instead of the glamo (which leaves you back with the SDIO interface shortage)? we can just drive the vga screen at qvga. no need for scaling - just change the output at the lcd controller level. but it is a waste to pay for a vga screen when we won't use it. also it does look blocky. it isn't about glamo or not - it's separate to glamo entirely. simply - how important is a vga screen... really? how many people out there can really see the difference? be really honest. stop thinking my specs are bigger than your specs. scan u REALLY see all the pixels on a vga screen of that size. i bet to most people its all a blur - a qvga screen looks identical to them. only to a minority who have very good eyesight does it really make a difference, but this is just my bet. i'm asking the question - and hoping for real honest answers. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
Hi Carsten, I'd argue for a VGA screen for three reasons: On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 07:39:05 +0200, Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: we can just drive the vga screen at qvga. no need for scaling - just change the output at the lcd controller level. 1. Greater flexibility. I can use QVGA apps, I can use VGA apps, and I can use apps which are written for a fixed screen size in between. but it is a waste to pay for a vga screen when we won't use it. 2. The additional price for the better display is not such a huge problem. I don't think that a (marginally?) lower price would mean that many new customers. You even might lose potential customers who can't live with QVGA. When I get my Freerunner, I probably won't replace it with a newer phone soon. As the Freerunner is entirely open-source, it will stay compatible with new apps or services for a long time. Thus its life-time is probably longer than that of closed phones. The additional price for a better display is therefore not such a big issue, I think. With VGA the Freerunner has at least one great hardware feature that you won't find in every other smart phone. For me this is an important reason for wanting to buy one. how many people out there can really see the difference? be really honest. stop thinking my specs are bigger than your specs. Me. 3. Having used a Sharp Zaurus for ~5 years I am absolutely convinced of VGA resolution (though the Z's screen might be bigger than Freerunner's). You can see the difference in UI crispness, when displaying photos, when drawing. Due to the higher resolution, anti-aliasing is less important. Some of the applications I use most often (e.g. TextMaker (word processing), KO/Pi (calendar)) would suffer greatly if you had to scale the UI down to QVGA. So, please keep VGA - and offer smooth, fast switching to QVGA. Cheers, Raphael -- Dipl.-Medieninf. Raphael Wimmer Research Assistant LFE Media Informatics E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Munich Skype: real_raphman Amalienstr. 17 / Room 206 WWW: http://www.medien.ifi.lmu.de 80333 Munich Tel:+49 (89) 2180-4659 GermanyFax:+49 (89) 2180-99-4659 ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
On Fri, June 6, 2008 3:39 pm, Carsten Haitzler wrote: we can just drive the vga screen at qvga. no need for scaling - just change the output at the lcd controller level. but it is a waste to pay for a vga screen when we won't use it. also it does look blocky. it isn't about glamo or not - it's separate to glamo entirely. simply - how important is a vga screen... really? how many people out there can really see the difference? be really honest. stop thinking my specs are bigger than your specs. scan u REALLY see all the pixels on a vga screen of that size. i bet to most people its all a blur - a qvga screen looks identical to them. only to a minority who have very good eyesight does it really make a difference, but this is just my bet. i'm asking the question - and hoping for real honest answers. Well, it's hard to know without having an actual device to look at, but I'll try My notebook has a 15 inch 1920x1200 monitor which comes to 147dpi. The Freerunner is 285dpi, the pixels are very close to half the width/ height of my pixels. So at first I thought wow, that's tiny. I don't think I need them *that* small - and I have better than average eye sight. Then I resized my browser to 640x480 and found I could read it quite well, though lots of web pages don't quite fit. I took a screenshot of the window and displayed it at 50% in the GIMP. So presumably that is how the image could look on the Freerunner. If I hold this image at the same distance from my eye that I usually use a notebook (say 55cm) the text looks like it would be too small to comfortably read, though the reduction of resolution has made it blurry and I cannot be sure. If I hold it at the distance that I would typically read a book, which is closer to 35cm, the text is still a bit small, but I think I would be quite happy reading it - except that the low resolution has made it quite blurry. If it were still 640x480, but the same size I think I could read it quite happily. So my conclusion is that for reading textual content, the higher resolution probably is worth it for me. I doubt it would be of much value for photo for videos. I just tried watching a video at [EMAIL PROTECTED], and it was quite acceptable for the physical size. The question then becomes - how often will I be reading pages of text on my Freerunner. I really don't know. However maps are very similar to textual content - sharp contrast and the potential for lots of information in a small space. I tried a similar experiment comparing a google-maps image 320x240*147dpi and simulated [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the 320x240 felt very constrained - not enough information on the display. The 640x480 felt more comfortable and - I think - would have been readable if I had the real resolution. Maybe you could ask again we have all had our Freerunners for a couple of months. What was the story with 320x240x25fps video again? Is it possible with the available memory bandwidth? NeilBrown ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 2:07 PM, NeoSleg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, if the freerunner did not have VGA screen but QVGA, I would not buy it ! But the freerunner does have a VGA screen and as per information in Steve's email mass production is about to start/ has started. The debate is for the GTA03 device that, I believe, will be sold along with the freerunner and not as its replacement/ next generation (thats GTA04 - where I wish for WVGA if not SVGA!) People who want VGA can buy the Freerunner (GTA02) and who wish to pay less can get GTA03 with QVGA with faster performance. This is good as it will provide more choices on the OM phone stack and lead to the creation of a QVGA gui (along with a VGA gui) that will make it easier for OM to be ported to a number of existing devices also. Remember Openmoko is not just about having a cool device to show off to peers but also about opening up the mobile computing world and more the OM phone stack is used the better. Rakshat ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
Honestly, if the freerunner did not have VGA screen but QVGA, I would not buy it ! For me, VGA is a must have feature. As other said, there are plenty of QVGA devices. I don't want one of them because of the resolution. I have a Dell Axim X5 and I'm really sad about the QVGA resolution (in addition of the windows OS :( ) Please, please ... keep the VGA screen ! Yeah, same here. Besides, OM was really advertising the DPI for a long time back in 2006/2007 ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
On 6/6/08, NeilBrown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, June 6, 2008 3:39 pm, Carsten Haitzler wrote: we can just drive the vga screen at qvga. no need for scaling - just change the output at the lcd controller level. but it is a waste to pay for a vga screen when we won't use it. also it does look blocky. it isn't about glamo or not - it's separate to glamo entirely. simply - how important is a vga screen... really? how many people out there can really see the difference? be really honest. stop thinking my specs are bigger than your specs. scan u REALLY see all the pixels on a vga screen of that size. i bet to most people its all a blur - a qvga screen looks identical to them. only to a minority who have very good eyesight does it really make a difference, but this is just my bet. i'm asking the question - and hoping for real honest answers. Well, it's hard to know without having an actual device to look at, but I'll try My notebook has a 15 inch 1920x1200 monitor which comes to 147dpi. The Freerunner is 285dpi, the pixels are very close to half the width/ height of my pixels. So at first I thought wow, that's tiny. I don't think I need them *that* small - and I have better than average eye sight. Then I resized my browser to 640x480 and found I could read it quite well, though lots of web pages don't quite fit. I took a screenshot of the window and displayed it at 50% in the GIMP. So presumably that is how the image could look on the Freerunner. No. Now you need to zoom 2x. Then compare the original with this. They should occupy the same amount of space on your screen, but the QVGA should only have half the pixels. -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 07:54:34 + (GMT) David Samblas Martinez [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: Carsten, What app/situation you have in mind when you affirm than nobody can detect a the difference at half resolution? I have in mind a web browser a half resolution means double the scroll bars, I have in mind a pdf doc viewer, half resolution means I have to zoom in more the document to be readable, also a let you more useful surface to develop any app(more buttons, menu items) I'm wrong with all that thoughts? yes. :) wrong. :) you assume that you have to render 1:1, rendering a web page or pdf - you can render to an intermediate buffer than it higher res THEN scale down to screen res (be it vga, qvga or whatever it is) much like you scale any image the difference would be how sharp or blurry it is. and the vga screen will look blurry to anyone without excellent eyesight anyway (or someone with their eye about 3cm from the screen)... thus my point :) --- El vie, 6/6/08, Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: De: Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: Re: resolution preferences?? Para: List for Openmoko community discussion community@lists.openmoko.org CC: Steven Milburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: viernes, 6 junio, 2008 7:39 On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 00:02:14 -0400 Steven Milburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: This question is probably just because I misunderstood something you said before, but I'll ask anyway :) If it is acceptable to use QVGA, couldn't that basically be done without any hardware changes? I believe I remember you saying the glamo does scaling, so couldn't you let SW treat the display as qvga, and just have the glamo scale it up? Or, is the question more about having qvga instead of the glamo (which leaves you back with the SDIO interface shortage)? we can just drive the vga screen at qvga. no need for scaling - just change the output at the lcd controller level. but it is a waste to pay for a vga screen when we won't use it. also it does look blocky. it isn't about glamo or not - it's separate to glamo entirely. simply - how important is a vga screen... really? how many people out there can really see the difference? be really honest. stop thinking my specs are bigger than your specs. scan u REALLY see all the pixels on a vga screen of that size. i bet to most people its all a blur - a qvga screen looks identical to them. only to a minority who have very good eyesight does it really make a difference, but this is just my bet. i'm asking the question - and hoping for real honest answers. --Steve On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:42 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:50:43 +0200 Marc Bantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: quick question - would you prefer a qvga lcd (save a bit of cost) since we'e going to need to software-drive all graphics - the fewer pixels you have to fill, the better for speed. i'm really tossing up if the speed of qvga is worth the loss of resolution. i'm just not sure. Would that be 320x240 (QVGA [1]) or 480x320? qvga is 320x240. wqvga... that's a whole world of resolutions (400x240, 432x240, 480x272, 480x320). :) I think the latter would be acceptable in terms of usability. OTOH it would also but it's not a drop-in replacement as its widescreen. we c ould go for 2.8 vga or 2.8 qvga. drop-in replacement. anything else mans new case/design etc. etc. also remember just getting supply of a screen is hard. you also need it at a decent physical size. i'm asking the question if going down to a (relatively) low resolution screen would be an ok compromise. - create extra maintenance cost for system and app themes one way or another we will need to be able to do multiple resolutions in the long-run. - narrow on-screen information for people with good eye-sight (granny won't be affected ;-) Sofar I haven't suffered from lacking graphic speed on my GTA01. It seemed that waiting for UI feedback was mainly cause by other background processes (e.g. SD-read or such) My interest are standard smartphone and geo apps and for those I'd rather go for resolution. again - it depends what you want to do. :) gta01 actually performance better in many ways graphically :) -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openmoko
Re: resolution preferences??
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:17:40 +0530 rakshat hooja [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 2:07 PM, NeoSleg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, if the freerunner did not have VGA screen but QVGA, I would not buy it ! But the freerunner does have a VGA screen and as per information in Steve's email mass production is about to start/ has started. no one ever said the freerunner would have anything but vga. i'm asking in general as we will make decisions of vga vs qvga vs god knows what other resolutions, screen sizes etc. over time in future devices. i want to know what people think! :) The debate is for the GTA03 device that, I believe, will be sold along with the freerunner and not as its replacement/ next generation (thats GTA04 - where I wish for WVGA if not SVGA!) yup! much more like it - maybe not even gta03, maybe gta04/5/6 etc. but i want to know. convince me vga is incredibly more useful than qvga. convince me you all have amazing eyesight! :) i am doing this because i am trying to listen to the community and if given a choice - choose the right way based on what you guys think, but PLEASE, be practical, and honest. be honest with yourselves. this is not a my screen is higher dpi than your screen competition. it's about making a nice and usable device you want. if you ask for vga, but you really can't see the difference between qvga and vga, you're not being honest. you're just playing the spec numbers game. People who want VGA can buy the Freerunner (GTA02) and who wish to pay less can get GTA03 with QVGA with faster performance. This is good as it will provide more choices on the OM phone stack and lead to the creation of a QVGA gui (along with a VGA gui) that will make it easier for OM to be ported to a number of existing devices also. Remember Openmoko is not just about having a cool device to show off to peers but also about opening up the mobile computing world and more the OM phone stack is used the better. yup. and one day we may have a miniature phone that is the size of a coin and have a qvga screen on it. we will need to work with it, so a qvga phone at any time is not a bad idea. but as i said - i'm just looking to see what people think. and why. i'm very interested in why. why is a vga screen so important? can you REALLY see all the pixels? can you REALLY read an 8-point font on that screen at that size? (be honest!). from what i notice of people such a font is just a blurry mess to them and they are always increasing font sizes to be able to read anything, thus why spend so many pixels on it? but if you really can see that well - it does make sense. at least if u are always looking at static content. i content moves/animates, it's useless again. -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 20:16:15 +1000 (EST) NeilBrown [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: On Fri, June 6, 2008 3:39 pm, Carsten Haitzler wrote: we can just drive the vga screen at qvga. no need for scaling - just change the output at the lcd controller level. but it is a waste to pay for a vga screen when we won't use it. also it does look blocky. it isn't about glamo or not - it's separate to glamo entirely. simply - how important is a vga screen... really? how many people out there can really see the difference? be really honest. stop thinking my specs are bigger than your specs. scan u REALLY see all the pixels on a vga screen of that size. i bet to most people its all a blur - a qvga screen looks identical to them. only to a minority who have very good eyesight does it really make a difference, but this is just my bet. i'm asking the question - and hoping for real honest answers. Well, it's hard to know without having an actual device to look at, but I'll try My notebook has a 15 inch 1920x1200 monitor which comes to 147dpi. The Freerunner is 285dpi, the pixels are very close to half the width/ height of my pixels. So at first I thought wow, that's tiny. I don't think I need them *that* small - and I have better than average eye sight. Then I resized my browser to 640x480 and found I could read it quite well, though lots of web pages don't quite fit. I took a screenshot of the window and displayed it at 50% in the GIMP. So presumably that is how the image could look on the Freerunner. If I hold this image at the same distance from my eye that I usually use a notebook (say 55cm) the text looks like it would be too small to comfortably read, though the reduction of resolution has made it blurry and I cannot be sure. If I hold it at the distance that I would typically read a book, which is closer to 35cm, the text is still a bit small, but I think I would be quite happy reading it - except that the low resolution has made it quite blurry. If it were still 640x480, but the same size I think I could read it quite happily. So my conclusion is that for reading textual content, the higher resolution probably is worth it for me. I doubt it would be of much value for photo for videos. I just tried watching a video at [EMAIL PROTECTED], and it was quite acceptable for the physical size. The question then becomes - how often will I be reading pages of text on my Freerunner. I really don't know. However maps are very similar to textual content - sharp contrast and the potential for lots of information in a small space. I tried a similar experiment comparing a google-maps image 320x240*147dpi and simulated [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the 320x240 felt very constrained - not enough information on the display. The 640x480 felt more comfortable and - I think - would have been readable if I had the real resolution. cool. someone actually has done a did some experiments on themselves! well done! this is just the kind of stuff i was hoping for. this is one of the best responses. it's subjective, but using objective measurements as best possible with the equipment you have. good! so yes - the blurry scaled down in gimp @ qvga would be a qvga screen on a freerunner. vga would be sharper. then again - until u have a 285dpi screen it's hard to really compare! :) but this is the best you can do! nice! :) opinion noted for the future! :) Maybe you could ask again we have all had our Freerunners for a couple of months. What was the story with 320x240x25fps video again? Is it possible with the available memory bandwidth? argh! :) -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
How about keeping VGA, and making the screen bigger then 2.8? Just an idea, Federico On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 5:34 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 20:16:15 +1000 (EST) NeilBrown [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: On Fri, June 6, 2008 3:39 pm, Carsten Haitzler wrote: we can just drive the vga screen at qvga. no need for scaling - just change the output at the lcd controller level. but it is a waste to pay for a vga screen when we won't use it. also it does look blocky. it isn't about glamo or not - it's separate to glamo entirely. simply - how important is a vga screen... really? how many people out there can really see the difference? be really honest. stop thinking my specs are bigger than your specs. scan u REALLY see all the pixels on a vga screen of that size. i bet to most people its all a blur - a qvga screen looks identical to them. only to a minority who have very good eyesight does it really make a difference, but this is just my bet. i'm asking the question - and hoping for real honest answers. Well, it's hard to know without having an actual device to look at, but I'll try My notebook has a 15 inch 1920x1200 monitor which comes to 147dpi. The Freerunner is 285dpi, the pixels are very close to half the width/ height of my pixels. So at first I thought wow, that's tiny. I don't think I need them *that* small - and I have better than average eye sight. Then I resized my browser to 640x480 and found I could read it quite well, though lots of web pages don't quite fit. I took a screenshot of the window and displayed it at 50% in the GIMP. So presumably that is how the image could look on the Freerunner. If I hold this image at the same distance from my eye that I usually use a notebook (say 55cm) the text looks like it would be too small to comfortably read, though the reduction of resolution has made it blurry and I cannot be sure. If I hold it at the distance that I would typically read a book, which is closer to 35cm, the text is still a bit small, but I think I would be quite happy reading it - except that the low resolution has made it quite blurry. If it were still 640x480, but the same size I think I could read it quite happily. So my conclusion is that for reading textual content, the higher resolution probably is worth it for me. I doubt it would be of much value for photo for videos. I just tried watching a video at [EMAIL PROTECTED], and it was quite acceptable for the physical size. The question then becomes - how often will I be reading pages of text on my Freerunner. I really don't know. However maps are very similar to textual content - sharp contrast and the potential for lots of information in a small space. I tried a similar experiment comparing a google-maps image 320x240*147dpi and simulated [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the 320x240 felt very constrained - not enough information on the display. The 640x480 felt more comfortable and - I think - would have been readable if I had the real resolution. cool. someone actually has done a did some experiments on themselves! well done! this is just the kind of stuff i was hoping for. this is one of the best responses. it's subjective, but using objective measurements as best possible with the equipment you have. good! so yes - the blurry scaled down in gimp @ qvga would be a qvga screen on a freerunner. vga would be sharper. then again - until u have a 285dpi screen it's hard to really compare! :) but this is the best you can do! nice! :) opinion noted for the future! :) Maybe you could ask again we have all had our Freerunners for a couple of months. What was the story with 320x240x25fps video again? Is it possible with the available memory bandwidth? argh! :) -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
Flemming Richter Mikkelsen wrote: On 6/6/08, NeilBrown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, June 6, 2008 3:39 pm, Carsten Haitzler wrote: we can just drive the vga screen at qvga. no need for scaling - just change the output at the lcd controller level. but it is a waste to pay for a vga screen when we won't use it. also it does look blocky. it isn't about glamo or not - it's separate to glamo entirely. simply - how important is a vga screen... really? how many people out there can really see the difference? be really honest. stop thinking my specs are bigger than your specs. scan u REALLY see all the pixels on a vga screen of that size. i bet to most people its all a blur - a qvga screen looks identical to them. only to a minority who have very good eyesight does it really make a difference, but this is just my bet. i'm asking the question - and hoping for real honest answers. Well, it's hard to know without having an actual device to look at, but I'll try My notebook has a 15 inch 1920x1200 monitor which comes to 147dpi. The Freerunner is 285dpi, the pixels are very close to half the width/ height of my pixels. So at first I thought wow, that's tiny. I don't think I need them *that* small - and I have better than average eye sight. Then I resized my browser to 640x480 and found I could read it quite well, though lots of web pages don't quite fit. I took a screenshot of the window and displayed it at 50% in the GIMP. So presumably that is how the image could look on the Freerunner. No. Now you need to zoom 2x. Then compare the original with this. They should occupy the same amount of space on your screen, but the QVGA should only have half the pixels. No again :). Someone has mentioned this before, but I thought I'd clear this up since it's come up a few times. QVGA stands for Quarter VGA (320*240 = 75kpix), so it's 1/4 of the pixels of real VGA (640*480 = 300kpix). Half the height and you have half the pixels, after that half the width and 1/4 remains. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 00:02:14 -0400 Steven Milburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: This question is probably just because I misunderstood something you said before, but I'll ask anyway :) If it is acceptable to use QVGA, couldn't that basically be done without any hardware changes? I believe I remember you saying the glamo does scaling, so couldn't you let SW treat the display as qvga, and just have the glamo scale it up? Or, is the question more about having qvga instead of the glamo (which leaves you back with the SDIO interface shortage)? we can just drive the vga screen at qvga. no need for scaling - just change the output at the lcd controller level. but it is a waste to pay for a vga screen when we won't use it. also it does look blocky. it isn't about glamo or not - it's separate to glamo entirely. simply - how important is a vga screen... really? how many people out there can really see the difference? be really honest. stop thinking my specs are bigger than your specs. scan u REALLY see all the pixels on a vga screen of that size. i bet to most people its all a blur - a qvga screen looks identical to them. only to a minority who have very good eyesight does it really make a difference, but this is just my bet. i'm asking the question - and hoping for real honest answers. --Steve On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:42 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:50:43 +0200 Marc Bantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: quick question - would you prefer a qvga lcd (save a bit of cost) since we'e going to need to software-drive all graphics - the fewer pixels you have to fill, the better for speed. i'm really tossing up if the speed of qvga is worth the loss of resolution. i'm just not sure. Would that be 320x240 (QVGA [1]) or 480x320? qvga is 320x240. wqvga... that's a whole world of resolutions (400x240, 432x240, 480x272, 480x320). :) I think the latter would be acceptable in terms of usability. OTOH it would also but it's not a drop-in replacement as its widescreen. we c ould go for 2.8 vga or 2.8 qvga. drop-in replacement. anything else mans new case/design etc. etc. also remember just getting supply of a screen is hard. you also need it at a decent physical size. i'm asking the question if going down to a (relatively) low resolution screen would be an ok compromise. - create extra maintenance cost for system and app themes one way or another we will need to be able to do multiple resolutions in the long-run. - narrow on-screen information for people with good eye-sight (granny won't be affected ;-) Sofar I haven't suffered from lacking graphic speed on my GTA01. It seemed that waiting for UI feedback was mainly cause by other background processes (e.g. SD-read or such) My interest are standard smartphone and geo apps and for those I'd rather go for resolution. again - it depends what you want to do. :) gta01 actually performance better in many ways graphically :) -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community Having an edge in the my spec is bigger than yours-world wide championship is indeed good for marketing. Which sells more phones and spreads the open concept. Personally, i'd like VGA with the option to switch to QVGA for power-saving. (You DID save power on QVGA, no?). But then, I live in the west and the difference in price isn't a showstopper for me. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
i'm asking the question if going down to a (relatively) low resolution screen would be an ok compromise. I would not be remotely as interested in a device which is not, at least, VGA. As another person mentioned qvga is too small to do any type of web browsing effectively. I currently use a Palm TX as my PDA and find that the 320 x 480 screen still does not have the resolution to make the browsing experience anything but painful. Cheers Scott Petersen ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
When printer technology went from dot-matrix to laser-print (and later, ink-jet) there was a substantial qualitative difference in the visual appearance and quality of the output. One of the most attractive features of the Neo, for me, is the corresponding jump in display resolution. I've been waiting for this ever since laser-printing arrived! BTW, I would be perfectly happy driving VIDEO at lower resolution, but graphics, and especially text, really benefits from resolutions nearing the 300dpi range. -- Forwarded message -- From: rakshat hooja [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: List for Openmoko community discussion community@lists.openmoko.org Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 12:12:24 +0530 Subject: Re: resolution preferences?? The difference between the VGA screen of the Neo and the QVGA screens I have are very clear to me (with the VGA being clearly superior) when kept side by side. But for most of my activities including reading long emails the QVGA resolution is enough. So unless we have the processing power to run at least 25 FPS VGA video, I would be happy with a QVGA as there is bound to be a price and performance improvement. Rakshat On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 11:09 AM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 00:02:14 -0400 Steven Milburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: This question is probably just because I misunderstood something you said before, but I'll ask anyway :) If it is acceptable to use QVGA, couldn't that basically be done without any hardware changes? I believe I remember you saying the glamo does scaling, so couldn't you let SW treat the display as qvga, and just have the glamo scale it up? Or, is the question more about having qvga instead of the glamo (which leaves you back with the SDIO interface shortage)? we can just drive the vga screen at qvga. no need for scaling - just change the output at the lcd controller level. but it is a waste to pay for a vga screen when we won't use it. also it does look blocky. it isn't about glamo or not - it's separate to glamo entirely. simply - how important is a vga screen... really? how many people out there can really see the difference? be really honest. stop thinking my specs are bigger than your specs. scan u REALLY see all the pixels on a vga screen of that size. i bet to most people its all a blur - a qvga screen looks identical to them. only to a minority who have very good eyesight does it really make a difference, but this is just my bet. i'm asking the question - and hoping for real honest answers. --Steve On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:42 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:50:43 +0200 Marc Bantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: quick question - would you prefer a qvga lcd (save a bit of cost) since we'e going to need to software-drive all graphics - the fewer pixels you have to fill, the better for speed. i'm really tossing up if the speed of qvga is worth the loss of resolution. i'm just not sure. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
resolution preferences??
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:50:43 +0200 Marc Bantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: quick question - would you prefer a qvga lcd (save a bit of cost) since we'e going to need to software-drive all graphics - the fewer pixels you have to fill, the better for speed. i'm really tossing up if the speed of qvga is worth the loss of resolution. i'm just not sure. Would that be 320x240 (QVGA [1]) or 480x320? qvga is 320x240. wqvga... that's a whole world of resolutions (400x240, 432x240, 480x272, 480x320). :) I think the latter would be acceptable in terms of usability. OTOH it would also but it's not a drop-in replacement as its widescreen. we c ould go for 2.8 vga or 2.8 qvga. drop-in replacement. anything else mans new case/design etc. etc. also remember just getting supply of a screen is hard. you also need it at a decent physical size. i'm asking the question if going down to a (relatively) low resolution screen would be an ok compromise. - create extra maintenance cost for system and app themes one way or another we will need to be able to do multiple resolutions in the long-run. - narrow on-screen information for people with good eye-sight (granny won't be affected ;-) Sofar I haven't suffered from lacking graphic speed on my GTA01. It seemed that waiting for UI feedback was mainly cause by other background processes (e.g. SD-read or such) My interest are standard smartphone and geo apps and for those I'd rather go for resolution. again - it depends what you want to do. :) gta01 actually performance better in many ways graphically :) -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: resolution preferences??
This question is probably just because I misunderstood something you said before, but I'll ask anyway :) If it is acceptable to use QVGA, couldn't that basically be done without any hardware changes? I believe I remember you saying the glamo does scaling, so couldn't you let SW treat the display as qvga, and just have the glamo scale it up? Or, is the question more about having qvga instead of the glamo (which leaves you back with the SDIO interface shortage)? --Steve On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:42 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:50:43 +0200 Marc Bantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: quick question - would you prefer a qvga lcd (save a bit of cost) since we'e going to need to software-drive all graphics - the fewer pixels you have to fill, the better for speed. i'm really tossing up if the speed of qvga is worth the loss of resolution. i'm just not sure. Would that be 320x240 (QVGA [1]) or 480x320? qvga is 320x240. wqvga... that's a whole world of resolutions (400x240, 432x240, 480x272, 480x320). :) I think the latter would be acceptable in terms of usability. OTOH it would also but it's not a drop-in replacement as its widescreen. we c ould go for 2.8 vga or 2.8 qvga. drop-in replacement. anything else mans new case/design etc. etc. also remember just getting supply of a screen is hard. you also need it at a decent physical size. i'm asking the question if going down to a (relatively) low resolution screen would be an ok compromise. - create extra maintenance cost for system and app themes one way or another we will need to be able to do multiple resolutions in the long-run. - narrow on-screen information for people with good eye-sight (granny won't be affected ;-) Sofar I haven't suffered from lacking graphic speed on my GTA01. It seemed that waiting for UI feedback was mainly cause by other background processes (e.g. SD-read or such) My interest are standard smartphone and geo apps and for those I'd rather go for resolution. again - it depends what you want to do. :) gta01 actually performance better in many ways graphically :) -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
