QVGA V/s VGA for GTA03 (was something about yummy CPU-GPU combos!)
dylan.semler at gmail.com
Thu Jun 5 17:04:32 CEST 2008
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 8:32 AM, rakshat hooja <rakshat at gmail.com> wrote:
>> quick question - would you prefer a qvga lcd (save a bit of cost) since
>>> going to need to software-drive all graphics - the fewer pixels you have
>>> fill, the better for speed. i'm really tossing up if the speed of qvga is
>>> the loss of resolution. i'm just not sure.
> I have a Sharp 903 with qvga, 2.4 inch, Nokia N95 with qvga, 2.4 inch and
> the Neo 1973 with VGA, 2.8 inch. By far the best screen for reading is the
> Sharp one. On closer examination you can see pixels which you dont on the
> Neo but the display just feels better, crisper and better on the eyes. When
> you view higher res photos the Neo display seems better but not by much. The
> N95 is also good when you look at it on its own and one has no problems
> reading anything but when kept next to the Neo 1973 and Sharp 903 one can
> tell the display is not in the same league. (the Sharp is also visible in
> the sun though I dont think its trans-reflective)
I don't know, I have the opposite feeling. Screen real estate is /very/
important to me and the VGA screen is one of the only hardware features of
the Neos that separate it from most other smart phones. It's probably my
favorite hardware feature and I'm definitely willing to pay for it. Web
browsing on my current smart phone with a QVGA screen is very annoying; I'm
hoping the VGA of the Freerunner will be enough of an improvement to browse
If you are suggesting that the Neo 1973 is harder to read because the
letters are smaller (which you may not be doing), in theory that can be
worked around in software.
You're points on the LCM are probably very good ones, though I've never
heard of LCM before.
Type faster. Use Dvorak:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the community