<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
quick question - would you prefer a qvga lcd (save a bit of cost) since we'e<br>
going to need to software-drive all graphics - the fewer pixels you have to<br>
fill, the better for speed. i'm really tossing up if the speed of qvga is worth<br>
the loss of resolution. i'm just not sure.<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></blockquote></div><br>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)<br>
<br>The point I am trying to make is that the quality of LCM being used matters as much as qvga or vga. Qvga is sufficient for almost all needs on a mobile phone size device and would be great if it provides cost and speed improvements. But it has to be a really good quality QVGA.<br>
<br>Personally I love the resolution and form factor of the PSP Slim LCM and would love to see something similar on GTA0X.<br><br>Rakshat<br>