[RUSH]

i get tired of zooming on the screen. larger screen and webos gets my vote. i would be ok with 3.5 if they can some how keep the pre form factor but no larger than 4" on a slab. the dell venue pro would be idea

I concur on the zooming part... However, other larger phone screen still requires occasional zooming as well.

[protomaxxx]

i like to read books on my pre. a bigger screen would make it easier on my eyes. upcoming webos devices need a bigger screen, bigger keyboard, bigger battery.

the whole premise of palm's business strategy was building next generation devices centered around the web (hence, the name of their operation system: webOS). well that web would be a lot easier to see on a bigger screen.

[Reeves]

Also, it's so important to watch a full hd movie in a 25 inches 1080p?

People here is talking about screen resolution and screen size. In a 4 inches screen that 800x480 resolution is important, not so much in 3.1 inches.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums Beta

They go hand in hand. People want a larger screen AND more resolution. I mean, by this reasoning Palm was foolish for ditching the Treo 320x320, 2-inch display. You still see pixels, letters, and images either way, right? Palm apparently would've been better off just shipping more Treos with the Teal launcher slapped on top instead of wasting the money and manpower on WebOS.

[wellwellwell11]

heres a iphone 4 960x640 next to the iphone 3gs 320x480(same as the pre, pre 2)

iPhone 4 vs iPhone 3GS in Pictures | TiPb


I put some pics up, and to me I know the text is cleaner when compared, but to me its not that big of a deal. As stated even by Steve Jobs the most you can get out of a screen resolution the size of the iphone 3.5 is 300ppi, and the retna type display exeeds that. So to me the difference in screen resolution is minute. Though I wouldnt mind a bigger screen, but to me this shows that since the pre, and pre 2 are smalled then the iphone 320x480 is sufficent enough.

[deCorvett]

They go hand in hand. People want a larger screen AND more resolution. I mean, by this reasoning Palm was foolish for ditching the Treo 320x320, 2-inch display. You still see pixels, letters, and images either way, right? Palm apparently would've been better off just shipping more Treos with the Teal launcher slapped on top instead of wasting the money and manpower on WebOS.

That goes hand in hand in your preferences, not all. I don't want a 4 inches device. Obviously, if the screen goes bigger in future devices, I'm with you that more screen res is a must.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums Beta

[Reeves]

That goes hand in hand in your preferences, not all. I don't want a 4 inches device. Obviously, if the screen goes bigger in future devices, I'm with you that more screen res is a must.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums Beta

Of course, it's about preferences, but at a certain point, technology and popular opinion dictate changes in standards. We went from silent films to talkies to stereo to 5.1 surround to 7.1 and it goes on and on. While I am sure people at each of those transitional points preferred the "old" and were mystified at "what the big deal" was about the new, progress continued nonetheless.

The standards for smartphone display have pretty much shifted in 2010/2011 to 800x400/960x640 and screens of 3.5-inches and larger. These are largely considered better than smaller and lower resolution displays much as you wouldn't trade whatever computer monitor you are reading this on for one 60 percent of the size and and quarter of the resolution.

[PrinceAlbert]

If you can't fit an EVO, Droid, or Epic easily into your pants pockets, you are either:

A) The GEICO Gecko
B) Wee-Man
C) The "tiny hands" guy from the Burger King commercials

Obviously, you've never worn rock star tight leather pants...


-- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums Beta

[Tophaholic]

Though the display is a bit on the smaller side...I find the colors on my Pre Plus screen really vibrant. I compared the colors to my wife's iPhone and found that the iPhone 3GS has kind of a bit toned down colors. especially evident on sites like ESPN.com etc.

I hardly ever realize that the display is a 320X480.

[Reeves]

Obviously, you've never worn rock star tight leather pants...


-- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums Beta

Fair enough. Add Scott Stapp and the Kings of Leon to the lengthy list of people physically unable to pocket a modern smartphone.

[wellwellwell11]

Though the display is a bit on the smaller side...I find the colors on my Pre Plus screen really vibrant. I compared the colors to my wife's iPhone and found that the iPhone 3GS has kind of a bit toned down colors. especially evident on sites like ESPN.com etc.

I hardly ever realize that the display is a 320X480.

prob because the Pre (all version) have 24 bit 16m colors same amount as the iphone 4, and funny thing is the Pre still has more colors and a higher bit rate then phones like the htc EVO, and incrediable. Again to me with a 3.1 inch screen I believe the resolution is fine, when the screen gets bigger (which is what they should have done, hopefully soon) then we should expect a higher res.

[omahawildcat]

so whos the moron who thinks a palm watch I'd going to fly?

[mikeisnowonfire]

Although I want nicer specs as much as everyone else, I wasn't expecting the Pre 2 to change the game. Just bump the specs. We shall see what HP/Palm holds for us in 2011. Now if you'll excuse me I have to get my phone replaced (again)...

[Stihl]

I'd like a slightly larger screen just because I really think it's the only way Palm is going to take the keyboard seriously. There's definitely a sweetspot between these mammoth slate phones that are ridiculous and what we have now.

[bakerja]

Launch day pre owner, just got an EPIC this morning.

I must say this device is great. In fact I really was hesitant but once I dove in, I have not regretted the decision in the least. Taking some getting used to the huge keyboard but expect that's to be expected.

The device is silky smooth and has all the apps I was "waiting for".

I hate that palm could not meet my needs but oh well, survival of the fittest.

[legos]

It doesn't make sense to me why we are all obsessed with smartphones as thin as paper, and yet, if the screen is the size of a movie theatre, we get butterflies. Anyone else feel this way?

[nappy]

It doesn't make sense to me why we are all obsessed with smartphones as thin as paper, and yet, if the screen is the size of a movie theatre, we get butterflies. Anyone else feel this way?

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[aharmsworth]

I think the ideal would be a seamless pair of screens. A 5in or 7in tablet seamlessly connected to a sall pocketabe phone. HP has hinted at that concept. I carry a small phone with me that has everything on it. When I want to read a lot, I grab the tablet, linked to my Pre with exactly thw same applications, connectivity and data. As part of that pair - the Pre with a faster processor and more memory is perfect.

Andrew

[legos]

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I don't mean to sound stupid, but what exactly do you mean?

[jbg7474]

heres a iphone 4 960x640 next to the iphone 3gs 320x480(same as the pre, pre 2)

iPhone 4 vs iPhone 3GS in Pictures | TiPb


I put some pics up, and to me I know the text is cleaner when compared, but to me its not that big of a deal. As stated even by Steve Jobs the most you can get out of a screen resolution the size of the iphone 3.5 is 300ppi, and the retna type display exeeds that. So to me the difference in screen resolution is minute. Though I wouldnt mind a bigger screen, but to me this shows that since the pre, and pre 2 are smalled then the iphone 320x480 is sufficent enough.

Those pictures you put up don't do the iPhone4 display justice. I've seen it up close, and I think there's a pretty big difference. But I think I agree with your conclusion: 960x640 would be overkill on the Pre's 3.1" screen. I think the Pre's pixel density is somewhere in between the 3GS and 4 pixel densities. Oh heck, let's just do some math.
Assuming square pixels...
3.5" 320x480: (320c)^2+(480c)^2=3.5^2

c^2=3.5^2/(320^2+480^2)
c=sqrt(3.5^2/(320^2+480^2))=.00607 inches/pixel
pixel density=1/c=164.8 pixels/inch

3.5" 640x960: c=sqrt(3.5^2/(640^2+960^2))=.003033 inches/pixel

pixel density=329.65 pixels/inch

3.1" 320x480: c=.005374 inches/pixel

pixel density=186.1 pixels/inch

Just for the heck of it, what would 480x800 look like on the Pre's 3.1" screen?

3.1" 480x800: c=.003323 inches/pixel

pixel density=300.95 pixels/inch

3.1" 640x960: c=.002687

pixel density=372.2 pixels/inch <--I'm not sure this is possible with current tech.

So the Pre's pixel density would come pretty close to the iPhone4's retina display if it had a 480x800 resolution. Of course, for square pixels, the Pre's screen would have to be a little bit longer, since 480/800 is not the same ratio as 320/480. So there are some challenges there. Then there are the PDK apps--you can't do something simple like just doubling each pixel to fill the screen. You would have to do 3 pixels for every 2. It could be done, but it's a little bit messier.

Anyway, after all of this, when you take everything into account, if the Pre 2's job was to basically be the same phone, even to the extent of using the same Touchstone back, there really wasn't much they could do with the screen. Possibly they could have gone to 480x800, but you could easily argue that back in the spring when they were putting this guy together the extra effort wasn't worth it. It is very likely that the design for the Pre 2 was completed prior to the completion of the acquisition, which makes it unlikely that HP had any involvement (or cash) in this device. In other words, the design was very much cost constrained.

At least, those are my two cents.

[jbg7474]

Fair enough. Add Scott Stapp and the Kings of Leon to the lengthy list of people physically unable to pocket a modern smartphone.

Nonsense. They have people who wear reasonable pants to do their pocketing for them.