Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by TazUk
    Seems a bit of a strange way around for things to be done I would have thought MS would look at what hardware was around and write their software to support it. So as higher resolution screens become available they will only be usable in WM if the manufacturer specifically requests MS support them
    With all due respect to you...

    We are talking about Micro$oft.
  2. #22  
    I don't see MS doing anything for anyone unless there is cash involved. Look at Vista's marketing strategy...

    1. Release a code base so full of holes that a 6 year old can write viruses to exploit it.
    2. Charge peeps $50 per year for AV software.

    It doesn't make business sense to write solid, secure code....there's no money in it.
  3. #23  
    There's cash involved in the success in the product and MS knows that. The better the product, the more they can charge and the more they can sell.

    Has anyone asked why Microsoft didn't look at the Treo 650 and build in support for 320x320 for Palm? I know if I'm building some software for someone to build upon it's generally in my best interest to anticipate the capabilities they'll need ahead of time.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by shadowmite
    There would have been no hassle or holdup whatsoever. This design has been in the works for YEARS. Anyone who watched the original announcement about the 700w knows that. Palm simply did NOT ask microsoft for this, nor did they desire to. Granted, maybe they didn't know they could ask. But you can't say this would have caused trouble, it wouldn't have. Microsoft would code the translation table into the operating system. No third party apps would have to care about anything other than square resolutions.
    Why wouldn't have Microsoft just coded this translation table without Palm asking for it? Obviously hardware manufacturers make a 320x320 screens (a la the Treo 650), so shouldn't the OS support all the resolutions possible if it is no hassle or holdup?
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by shadowmite
    There would have been no hassle or holdup whatsoever.
    Uhhhh, yeah.
    Patrick Horne
  6. #26  
    Actually, Gex posted Microsoft's explaination here. It's all about the evolution of the two platforms and the software that was developed to support it. For these reasons, we will see a 480X480 not a 320X320 "w" version Treo next.
  7. #27  
    Does WM support 320X480?

    Running a 480X480 screen would be crazy/stupid take you pick.
  8. #28  
    Well, not according to M$. You'd actually get double the rez with the same size screen since it would still be 240X240 in size just double the pixels displaying that size. In effect, ti would be like comparing a treo 600 to a 650. VGA works the same way. There's no actual resolution diff in the X51v v.s. the X51 since very few M$ apps actually use the resolution directly. Not all of us have 20/10 vision you see. However, compare them side by side and you'll find the difference in clarity striking.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by Sleuth255
    For these reasons, we will see a 480X480 not a 320X320 "w" version Treo next.
    Considering the price, that may be a while away....omly place I have seen them so far is in boat electronics and dashmount GPS systems
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions