resolution preferences??

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) raster at
Fri Jun 6 04:42:35 CEST 2008

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:50:43 +0200 Marc Bantle <openmoko at> 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

> - 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) <raster at>

More information about the community mailing list