VGA vs. QVGA - Page 2

jb2001 · 09-07-04, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by hd2002

One picture is worth a thousand words.

If you read on to the second page Pocket IE sounds pretty disapointing. I hope PIEplus bring out a VGA version.

You would think microsoft would have changed the setings to enable full screen 640x480.

biggulp · 09-07-04, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by nuka_t

i know, but why not use 480x320 instead of 640x480? palm manages screens from 160 x 160 to 480x 320,youd think it would be possible for MS to do the same.

maybe its just a matter of being better than palm.

it's a hassle to have so many screen resolutions. developers have to make their software compatible for each. ppc developers would save a lot of time not needing to view their software on other resolutions.

nuka_t · 09-08-04, 12:57 AM

but i still want 480x320...

640x480 seems like overkill and 320x240 is just not good enough.

aaargh.

does anyone feel the same way?

Midknight · 09-08-04, 02:03 AM

Whats wrong with overkill though? Eventually something will use it.

nuka_t · 09-08-04, 03:00 AM

but i have to pay for it. vga's are too expensive for me, even a 400dollar x50 is out of my range.

HighTymes · 09-08-04, 04:05 AM

That VGA screen sure does look nice but if the X50 is as big as X5, less performance then X30H and costs over $500 then i am not going to be interested. Mobile-review better dare not compare the A730 to the X30H in performance, get it butt whooped :p I can't believe they didn't compare it though as the new CPU should be compared to other new PPCs out there witht he new CPUs.

biggulp · 09-08-04, 04:34 AM

i agree that 320 x 240 is not enough. it's been stuck there for years!

poppajon · 09-08-04, 01:46 PM

i cant wait to get my VGA, let me tell you why. for one thing, movies will look unbelievable in 640x480 on a 3.7 inch screen. i've pushed the quality of a 320x240 as high as it will go, and it still reminds me of the VHS days. this however comes with at a price. media encoded as 320x240 will take up anywhere between 1/4 and 1/8th (depending on quality) the size of a 640x480 clip. a full sized movie in 640x480 at mid grade quality can be over 1GB of information, while at 320x240, it would only be about 250mb. therefore, either better codecs will have to be invented, or larger compactflash hardrives. i already plan to purchase a 4.4gb compactflash hardrive along with my X50.

another thing is that web pages will look so much better on the VGA screen. images will be clearer, therefore can be shown at smaller sizes and still be readable. therefore... no more scrolling all over the place. i've seen web sites on a VGA screen on a PPC, and its more like using a small tablet pc than a PPC.

poppaj

DellAximX5 · 09-08-04, 02:06 PM

Yeah 640x480 is the way to go! VGA is standard now in most products. The new camera phones now supports VGA! Common screen sizes for movies on digital cameras nowadays are 160x120, 320x240 and 640x480. 480x320 is somewhere out there floatin on some devices like the Palm.

dekruyter · 09-08-04, 03:37 PM

This is a very good topic, and I think everyone is right, for their very own reasons.

I agree that images will be great.

However, the advantage of text, in my opinion, won't be such a big jump because most of us don't have the vision of a hawk. Most likely we will work in same text size. That means no additional working space, just rounder fonts.

What do you think of this?

gadgetnerd · 09-08-04, 04:10 PM

Yeah, but in WM2003 non-SE you can't change the text size, and on my X5 the 10-point text is the size of 14-point on my 1400X1050 14.1-in laptop screen. In VGA with WM2003SE you can make the text a size that suits yourself. In my opinion, the 1024X768 res on my 17-in desktop CRT would cause more eyestrain than looking at a ten-point font that's the size of a 6-7-point font on my laptop. I like small fonts, but i think that the maximum physically enabled by the higher resolution is really overkill.

dekruyter · 09-09-04, 10:33 PM

What do others think of this VGA vs QVGA.

MichaelX30 · 09-09-04, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by dekruyter

This is a very good topic, and I think everyone is right, for their very own reasons.

I agree that images will be great.

However, the advantage of text, in my opinion, won't be such a big jump because most of us don't have the vision of a hawk. Most likely we will work in same text size. That means no additional working space, just rounder fonts.

What do you think of this?

I think most of us when we get a VGA Pocket PC (not neccesarily the X50) will find their own personal text size. I would like to fit some more on the screen that is currently available, but not have it 1/4 the original size! so individualy we could compensate size/legibility

dekruyter · 09-09-04, 11:11 PM

My laptop is 1600 x 1200 by default. For me, using the default font six is rediculous. Too small. But I can change it!!

Shizelbs · 09-09-04, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by MichaelX30

I always wonder how computers will affect genetics down the line... maybe one day in like 2,000 years our posterity will be able to read text in 1280x1024 on 3.7 inch screen

It won't. Period.

People with poor vision will breed just like the people you speculate with superior vision. PDAs will not enforce natural selection.

As a race we are no longer hunters. Our survival does not depend on the development of incredible vision.

Our genes do not think, have cognitive skills, nor do they know how to change themselves, let alone for the better.