Page 27 of 30 FirstFirst ... 17222324252627282930 LastLast
Results 521 to 540 of 589
  1. vaylen's Avatar
    Posts
    30 Posts
    Global Posts
    35 Global Posts
    #521  
    Originally posted by wcarlson40
    Vaylen, you keep saying there IS a difference between 160x160 vs 320x320, but I don't know about you, but the example comparison you give shows up at about 4 plus inches on my monitor. Of course, on a 4 inch screen, there IS going to be a difference. How about on a 2 inch screen? I don't think there is much difference. See example below (I resized your example image to 2 inches)

    http://www.stacworks.com/temp/web2.gif
    Increase the resolution on your monitor to it's highest setting. My ATI does 2048x1536. If your monitor is smaller, this obviously helps too. You can get a 2 inch example on a 17 inch monitor easier than on a 21 inch monitor. When you do this you WILL see a difference. I sure did, and my vision is only 20/20.
  2. vaylen's Avatar
    Posts
    30 Posts
    Global Posts
    35 Global Posts
    #522  
    Originally posted by Scott R
    Here's another thought on the 160x160 issue...

    It's possible that they're doing this to please Sprint. Think about this: Sprint currently offers unlimited data usage for all of their phones. They have a separate (much more expensive) plan for their PCMCIA cards. The unlimited data plan for phones keeps things simple for them and serves as a great marketing advantage. Well, if Handspring offered a 320x320 Treo it would follow that they'd change Blazer to be 320x320 compatible. More importantly, this means that their proxy-server would no longer scale images down to sub-160 pixel width, but would now cut the limit at close to 320 pixels. That means significantly larger images taking up more bandwidth on Sprint's network.

    Just a thought.

    Scott
    Uhhh. Well your wireless internet carrier doesn't change its data stream because you are using Blazer instead of Zframe or some other browser. Yahoo is going to send you the same page regardless. What your browser does WITH that information is dependent on the hardware (in this case it interpolates it down to 160x160). But you aren't being saved from receiving any less bandwidth. I know this because I don't have Sprint, so I pay for my bandwidth, and when you pay for something you tend to keep pretty good track of it. I think there are devices which encode the data for a small screen before they send it to you (I think the pogo device did this). But Sprint's only concern about a 320x320 screen is that people will actually USE this friggin' phone for web surfing if they can read the screen, so by if they did indeed bully PalmSpring into keeping the screen at 160x160, then they are just trying to keep people from using it for the internet that way.
  3. #523  
    Originally posted by vaylen


    Increase the resolution on your monitor to it's highest setting. My ATI does 2048x1536. If your monitor is smaller, this obviously helps too. You can get a 2 inch example on a 17 inch monitor easier than on a 21 inch monitor. When you do this you WILL see a difference. I sure did, and my vision is only 20/20.
    You're not suggesting that they put a CRT on the Treo, are you?

    How do you think they could create such an LCD screen and sell it at reasonable prices? No one else has yet done that. The SGH-i500 turned out to have 160x160 pixels.

    I think some of us should stop asking for the impossible (or at least, the economically infeasible) just because we would really really really like to have it. We're supposed to be an atypical, "geeky" crowd that would understand technical specs. I wish we would give the technical debate its due attention before we descend into wishing for features.
  4. #524  
    > ...Well your wireless internet carrier doesn't change its data
    > stream because you are using Blazer instead of Zframe or
    > some other browser. Yahoo is going to send you the same
    > page regardless. What your browser does WITH that
    > information is dependent on the hardware (in this case it
    > interpolates it down to 160x160). But you aren't being saved
    > from receiving any less bandwidth...

    Not true with Blazer.

    You hit a web page - that web page gets downloaded to the Blazer Proxy server somewhere "on the Net" - the Blazer proxy server munges the page to reduce its byte-size and sends it to your Blazer browser - that's the "Sprint" (download) bandwidth usage - your Blazer browser does its thing to display the web page on your PALM OS device.

    The proxy server has some sort of internet connectivity that can get overloaded, of course (indeed - more TREOs, more chance for overload), since each page hit has to travel more-or-less TWICE across its connectivity.

    But there is theoretically substantial bandwidth saving TO your TREO by using Blazer over using a direct browser such as Eudora.
  5. #525  
    Originally posted by wcarlson40
    Vaylen, you keep saying there IS a difference between 160x160 vs 320x320, but I don't know about you, but the example comparison you give shows up at about 4 plus inches on my monitor. Of course, on a 4 inch screen, there IS going to be a difference. How about on a 2 inch screen? I don't think there is much difference. See example below (I resized your example image to 2 inches)

    http://www.stacworks.com/temp/web2.gif
    Oh give me a break! You downsampled the image! Of course they are going to look the same. People, do not use this as a valid comparison of two resolutions as they are both the same.
  6. #526  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Oh give me a break! You downsampled the image! Of course they are going to look the same. People, do not use this as a valid comparison of two resolutions as they are both the same.
    Okay Kurt, then YOU please reduce the size so we can all know how it's really going to look. I didn't do any 'downsampling', I simply used Adobe Photoshop and reduced the size by half (I don't know about everybody else, but the original shows up as 4 plus inches wide on my monitor....I'm already at my max resolution of 1024x768)

    So Kurt, please do us all a favor and show us how it's REALLY gonna look on the treo 600.....
    Last edited by wcarlson40; 06/10/2003 at 09:45 AM.
  7. #527  
    You did downsample. By cutting the size in photoshop, you decreased the available information. What was originally done was a 160x160 was increased so it was 320x320 and then placed next to a 320x320. At this point, a monitor will show the difference between the two (one pixel on the screen is equal to 1 pixel in the 320x320 and one quarter in the blown-up 160x160). However, when you downsampled the image so they are both 160x160, you destroyed the additional information in the 320x320. Now the monitor was displaying 1 pixel for each pixel in the 160x160 and 1 pixel for every *4* in the 320x320. Clearly when you cram 4 pixels into one, you lose information.

    You cannot adjust the resolution on your monitor to fit given pixel counts into given dimensions. The best way to simulate a 320x320 screen on a 2 inch device would be to cut out a 2 inch square of paper, hold it at about where you would hold your phone, and then walk backwards until the square's apparent size is the same as the image on the screen. At that point, you can put your square down and gaze at the screen and see if you can tell a difference. Of course you need to have relatively no problem focussing at different lengths for this to the accurate.

    BTW, just to help you out a bit. The reason the image was 4 inches on your screen was because your monitor (or video card) cannot display information packed densely enough to make it 2 inches. What you did was destroy 3/4 of the information, allowing your monitor to indeed display all the information in a 2 inch square.
  8. #528  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    BTW, just to help you out a bit. The reason the image was 4 inches on your screen was because your monitor (or video card) cannot display information packed densely enough to make it 2 inches. What you did was destroy 3/4 of the information, allowing your monitor to indeed display all the information in a 2 inch square.
    Hmm, that is all good information, and I agree with what you are saying. But if my monitor can't fit 320x320 pixels into a 2 inch square, how can I expect a handheld device to do so?

    I guess the moral of the story is, if you want a 320x320 resolution, you will have to accept a 4 inch screen.
  9. #529  
    Originally posted by wcarlson40


    Hmm, that is all good information, and I agree with what you are saying. But if my monitor can't fit 320x320 pixels into a 2 inch square, how can I expect a handheld device to do so?
    The same way you can expect a handheld to fit in your pocket, use a low-power screen, accept handwriting input, not require a harddrive, or do any one of a number of things a handheld does all the time. Your reasoning escapes me.
  10. Iceman6's Avatar
    Posts
    463 Posts
    Global Posts
    500 Global Posts
    #530  
    Originally posted by wcarlson40


    Hmm, that is all good information, and I agree with what you are saying. But if my monitor can't fit 320x320 pixels into a 2 inch square, how can I expect a handheld device to do so?

    I guess the moral of the story is, if you want a 320x320 resolution, you will have to accept a 4 inch screen.
    I am drawing a different moral from this story. 320 x 320 pixels on a 2 inch screen will cost more money. It's the same idea as buying a monitor. As the pitch goes down from .26mm to .13mm (assuming you can buy it), the price goes up. TANSTAAFL.
  11. #531  
    Originally posted by wcarlson40


    I guess the moral of the story is, if you want a 320x320 resolution, you will have to accept a 4 inch screen.
    That's right, or something like the size of the Tungsten or Zire 71 screen. NOT a square with an edge < 2".
  12. #532  
    Kurt

    That is a creepy new avatar you have there. I don't think that would change at 160x160 or 320x320!
    I hate it when somebody has a cooler
    toy than me...
  13. #533  
    Kurt,

    So what's the end result of all of this? Are the images Vaylen posted accurate represenations, even in a 2 X 2 square?

    Thanks,

    Cluemeister
    Last edited by Cluemeister; 06/10/2003 at 11:17 AM.
  14. #534  
    Originally posted by silverado

    You're not suggesting that they put a CRT on the Treo, are you?

    How do you think they could create such an LCD screen and sell it at reasonable prices? No one else has yet done that. The SGH-i500 turned out to have 160x160 pixels.

    I think some of us should stop asking for the impossible (or at least, the economically infeasible) just because we would really really really like to have it. We're supposed to be an atypical, "geeky" crowd that would understand technical specs. I wish we would give the technical debate its due attention before we descend into wishing for features.
    -

    Why do kep saying the SGH-i500 will have only 160x160 pixels!! THIS IS NOT TRUE!!! The only source you have is that initial press release from Samsung which many, many people on other forums have pointed was an ERROR! Also, evey single other major new publication (PIC, Brighthand, phonescoop, infosync, etc) is reporting that it will indeed have a 324x352 pixels TFT screen. Are you trying to say everyone is wrong and you are correct? Please stopping spreading this mis-information regarding the SGH. If you like the Treo 600, fine. But don't tell me that a 320x320 screen is technically unfeasible when it is!!
  15. #535  
    Oh btw. here is the flash demo posted by Samsung which CLEARLY STATES the SGH-i500 has a 324x352 pixels TFT screen period!!
  16. #536  
    Originally posted by gfunkmagic
    -

    Why do kep saying the SGH-i500 will have only 160x160 pixels!! THIS IS NOT TRUE!!! The only source you have is that initial press release from Samsung which many, many people on other forums have pointed was an ERROR! Also, evey single other major new publication (PIC, Brighthand, phonescoop, infosync, etc) is reporting that it will indeed have a 324x352 pixels TFT screen. Are you trying to say everyone is wrong and you are correct? Please stopping spreading this mis-information regarding the SGH. If you like the Treo 600, fine. But don't tell me that a 320x320 screen is technically unfeasible when it is!!
    You are the first person to come on and respond to what I said and say this. I stated what the Samsung web site still says and, upto the time I said the comment you are referring to above, no one had contradicted me. Why didn't you "correct" me earlier if you thought I was wrong. I welcome debate based on facts.

    So, back to facts. I would like to read some specs that say that. Samsung hasn't corrected the information and I couldn't find anything on their web site that says otherwise. This infosync article raises the same question. My search of the web hasn't found any information to the contrary. The flash demo you point to says 324x352 resolution. I would have taken that to mean pixels had they not split hairs and made a distinction on their website. KRamsauer referred to a German PUG review. Sorry, but I can't take that over what the manufacturer says, especially given the general lack of expertise in screen resolutions/pixels coupled with what seems to be potentially misleading (and at a minimum confusing) language from Samsung.

    I'll believe it when Samsung says it or I see it. I will consider it if you point me to a competent source that said it.

    Support of 324x352 resolution can mean something very different from 324x352 pixels. The information on Samsung's web site is leading me to believe that they mean that if you use a double-density app (written for OS 5), it will display fine on their screen. I can make a 3000x4000 pixel picture display on a VGA screen using software. That's not very impressive.

    And I don't like the Treo 600. I haven't even seen it yet. I am sincerely in search of facts so that I could make informed decisions and I am sharing my thoughts and analysis with everyone here like you and others are doing.
    Last edited by silverado; 06/10/2003 at 12:21 PM.
  17. #537  
    Originally posted by Cluemeister
    Kurt,

    So what's the end result of all of this? Are the images Vaylen posted accurate represenations, even in a 2 X 2 square?

    Thanks,

    Cluemeister
    They are accurate representations of the amount of information displayed on the two screens. However, whether you can see the difference at the size and viewing distance a Treo screen would be is entirely a function of the monitor you are using, the distance between you and the monitor, between you and the hypothetical Treo 600, your eyesight, etc.
  18. #538  
    I think we've beaten this issue to death. As I said previously, I wouldn't be surprised if Sprint had something to do with this due to them wanting to limit the amount of bandwidth that was used, much as Danger created a low-res camera for T-Mobile. I also think that Hawkins had his mind made up to make a smaller device which meant a smaller screen (whether this was his idea or Sprint's, I don't know). Once it was determined that the screen would be smaller, the idea of keeping the resolution at 160x160 would seem fairly natural. It would be very difficult to position a cursor on a 320x320 app accurately.

    Having said all that, I'm really not liking this device. It's catering to the masses that will make up their minds on a device before ever trying it, rather than trying to be the best convergence device possible. The Sidekick was designed from the ground up to be a great portable email, IM, and web browser. It does so by offering a roomy thumbboard and a larger resolution screen (240x160) than the Treo, at the cost of making for a somewhat larger device. If I want a great smartphone that's sized more like a phone, I'll go with the much more capable (and free) Nokia 3650. I wish Hawkins had followed his old mindset of trying to create the ideal wireless device, even if it meant making it a bit bigger than the current Treo.

    Scott
    Now THIS is the future of smartphones.
  19. #539  
    I hope that you don't think this to be a dumb question, but isn't replying to an email on the Nokia 3650 going to be a pain since the imput methodology is T9 text entry?
    Without a stylus or keypad, I've always found inputing info to be frustrating.
    Maybe I'm missing something and if so, I appologize.
  20.    #540  
    I think the flaw in your logic Scott, in seeking a more-roomy thumbboard is that no one was buying the current Treo, based on size and perceived ease of use. To think that Handspring should make it larger would be asking them to tank the company. No way were they going to deliver a larger device. They thought that with the current device size they had struck the compromise between size and mass appeal, only to find that most folks were turning their noses at the big thing known as the Treo. I'm sure they realized that in order to get folks to BUY the danged thing, they HAD to make it smaller, as much as it pained them.
    The market will dictate success, not this board - remember that we are a bunch of phone goobers, and we have a different perspective. We are not the masses, although we are perfect and everyone else should follow our lead. What's wrong with everyone else? Don't they see the error of their ways? Don't they?

Posting Permissions