Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1.    #1  
    If you're buying a phone because it has the best specs, you're going to be really, really, disappointed when new phones with better specs come out a month after you get yours. Furthermore, if you're buying a phone for specs, you should probably at least know what the specs mean.

    1) Screen resolution. On it's own, screen resolution means approximately NOTHING. To determine the actual quality of the display, you'd have to consider the size and the pixel density. No other phone ever released or announced comes close to the iPhone 4's pixel density. Just because the iPhone 4 has 960x640 resolution does not mean it's a good display. Having 960x640 on a tiny little 3.5" screen makes it a good display. For televisions, the best HD option is 1080p at 1920x1080 resolution. From a normal seating distance, anybody claiming to be able to notice a difference in 1280x720 (720p) and 1080p on a TV under 40" is lying. It's not possible for the human eye to detect.
    iPhone 4 = 326ppi > Atrix = 275ppi > Pre 3 = 259ppi (by my rough calcs) > Droid Bionic = 256ppi
    You're not going to be able to discern the difference between the Atrix, Bionic, and Pre 3's screens in terms of clarity. Apple claims the human eye cannot detect pixels in the iPhone for at 326ppi at all. It's highly doubtful that you'll be able to tell the difference in the iPhone 4 and aforementioned devices, but if you can, even the Summer of 2010 iPhone 4 will be superior.

    2) Megapixels. Again, on their own, megapixels are not a good way to determine image quality. If the image processor, lens, flash, and autofocus are all more important than MP. At 250ppi, a 5MP image could be blown up to about 8x10" before you would notice any difference, even up close. A 42" 1080p TV is about 54ppi. There is NO WAY you can tell the difference from a 5MP image from a 3,000MP image on any TV from normal viewing distance. All the extra MP do is take up space and waste battery. The ONLY place you could make an argument for more MP is if you're doing a LOT of cropping, editing and blowing the images up into large prints. If you're using a camera phone for that, LOL, I'm sorry, but seriously stop.

    3) Dual core processors. Most of the time, applications are not designed to use multiple cores, and programs almost always lose efficiency when they are. There are rare instances with cache efficiency makes dual cores hyper efficient in theory, but in the majority of use, your user experience will be defined by the fastest single core processor on your device. Where you see a performance gain from 2 somewhat slower dual core processors vs a single faster core processor is multi-tasking and in intense 3D rendering. I doubt many people will be doing heavy video editing on their phones because it would be dirt slow regardless of your phone.

    If you don't like the Pre 3 and want to vent about it, there are enough good points about why the Pre 3 might fail to meet expectations so that making up falsehoods is unnecessary. Battery capacity is very low, you don't like the form factor, the release date is "Summer" and if we've learned anything from HP/Palm that may actually mean "Summer 2012", 8GB or even 16GB of storage on a modern smartphone that can take HD video is really pretty weak, the lack of clarity on network availability, the lack of clarity on potential to add 4G capability. Fine. Those are legitimate complaints. Since the Pre 3 DOES come with a compass, complaining there is not a compass just makes you look like an *****, btw.
  2. #2  
    Must be dual core. Dude, its a phone. You're running simple mobile apps, not converting video or playing a PC game. As long as the OS is snappy and lag free, who cares?

    If the PPI is good enough where the text isn't too blurry, i'm ok with that as well. But i do care about this spec.

    As for camera MP, its just disappointing to see people still excited about wanting more. I'd hoped that nonsense ended last decade.

Posting Permissions