Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. afdrookie's Avatar
    Posts
    11 Posts
    Global Posts
    76 Global Posts
       #1  
    Is there any talk of a treo that runs windows OS with better graphics than 240 X 240? If so when? And if not, of you users that have a 700w are the graphics really as bad as the reviews say? Thanks
  2. #2  
    If I were you I'd go to a verizon wireless store and see for yourself. To some it's a big deal, others think it's fine.
  3. afdrookie's Avatar
    Posts
    11 Posts
    Global Posts
    76 Global Posts
       #3  
    Hannip, What is your opinion?
  4. #4  
    My opinion is that for the size of the screen the resolution is fine. Pictures and video are crystal clear. The complaint is with the screen size itself. If the size doesn't bother you then I think you will be happy.
  5. #5  
    I don't have any problem with it what so ever and I thought I would since I previously had a Palm Tungsten with higher resolution, but really, it's fine.

    As suggested, go have a look.
    Last edited by buzzword; 07/28/2006 at 06:42 PM. Reason: fix typo
  6. afdrookie's Avatar
    Posts
    11 Posts
    Global Posts
    76 Global Posts
       #6  
    Maybe I am mistaken but you refer to the 240X240 as "screen size", is this not the actual clarity? And if this is so why does the 700p have a resolution of 340X340 (I think), are they not the same screen size? Just wondering??
    Thanks!
  7. #7  
    What I meant was that 240x240 resolution is fine for the 1.8x1.8 in. screen size. The 700p has a resolution of 320x320 on a 1.8x1.8in screen. Those are hardware dimensions. I'm not sure about the visible dimensions. Looking at the 700w screen there is a border that appears to be unused screen space. I haven't seen a 700p screen to see if this space is where the extra pixels reside. Maybe someone else that has seen both can pipe in.
  8. #8  
    I've had them all, and the screen on a 700w looks just as nice as one on a 650 and/or a 700p.

    Bottom line - go check it out for yourself. Don't depend on us schlubs to tell you (you wouldn't buy a car based on what people tell you -- go and drive the dang thing!)
  9. #9  
    Side by side there are two differences, I noticed:

    1. Resolution - 320 x 320 means almost twice (78 %) more pixels on screen than with 240 x 240. Let's say you doing searching a "Where's Waldo" HiDef image (1920 x 1280). It would require viewing 24 panels in POS and 48 panels to view on WM.

    What will happen for the most part tho is things just get shrunken more to fit on teh screen or at the lower screen res ya see more "jaggies". I'll say one thing, shrinking a HiDef image down to fit a 1.8" screen ???? Whether the "pixel compression" is 8:1 or 6:1, I have to say I ain't interested in watching either.

    2. Real Estate - The WM OS tends to use some of ya screen real estate for various functions.

    Now whether you are gonna liek or dislike those differences is something only you can detemine.

Posting Permissions