QVGA V/s VGA for GTA03 (was something about yummy CPU-GPU combos!)
linux.luser at myrealbox.com
Sat Jun 7 02:30:43 CEST 2008
On 6 Jun 2008, at 23:19, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
>> Let's reverse the question - would you reduce the resolution of your
>> desktop system?
>> What do you currently have? 1024*1280 or more?
>> You can still do everything like writing software, e-mail, web
>> browsing, gaming.
>> Probably even faster. But how would it appear? Future oriented or old
> this is different - because it's me - my eyesight is better than
> 20/20 and i
> use the highest res i can get, when i can get it as i know i can
> read my
> miniscule 8pt or less fonts. but no one else can read my screen -
> they all
> complain that it's too hard and i am forever upping font sizes if i
> want anyone
> to read something on it. i know *I* am fine with it, but the vast
> majority of
> other people can't read my screen. this is why i am cutting myself
> out of this
> - trying to not be personal about it as i know already i'm an
> exception to the
I haven't posted on this topic before because I'm not able to
personally compare VGA & QVGA 2" phone screens.
However my eyesight is also better than 20/20, and display quality is
generally quite visible to me.
Your statements have seemed to say that QVGA is "just as good" as VGA
for most people, and I have been sceptical of this - I find that my
current phone (P990i) is QVGA, and that is rubbish for viewing
webpages. Since you have 20/20 eyesight and can view tiny fonts at
high resolutions I'm inclined to believe that a VGA screen will, for
me, be better for displaying webpages & PDFs - I'll be able to fit
more on the screen and my eyesight will allow me to read the smaller
So my vote is for VGA (or even widescreen VGA, like the PSP?).
More information about the community