I am kind of sorry for starting this but, I agree in the fact if Microsoft would have put the 320x320 screen in the Treo like the Palm version all would be happy.
The palm version does not scale icons when web browsing yet when you visit the same site on each device the Palm version shows more information clearer than the windows one. I have some excel sheets that are basic but contain about 12 columes and 200 rows, on the palm I can see a-e and rows 1-16 very clear. On the Windows version I see a&b and rows 1&2. If I zoom down to 50% I can see about the same information on the windows version, but cannot read it because it is blurry. All of my software that was cut off on the 240x240 would have looked fine with 320x320.
I kept the palm version and returned the windows one soly due to the screen, and I would much rather have the windows one if the screens were equal, as none of my software works and the Palm is foreign to me.
The windows version is superior for what I do except for the poor screen, as soon as MS wakes up and gives it the 320x320 I will dump the Palm and switch.
Dan
When VGA capable devices first came out, there were multiple hacks to get the real-estate back and hacks were therefore developed and released which took advantage of that. So I think there is a consumer subset that wants the higher resolution to just mean get more Today screen content or just more information on the same device.
I see the same thing in the desktop world. I remember when people were running 640x480 or 800x600 desktops on 14 and 15 inch monitors. I and many of the people I know ran 1280x1024 to get more value out of that screen. Than, as resolution increased, so did monitor size average. I now see people with 21 inch monitors with much higher resolutions. There is a subset of customers however that still run 800x600 or some resolution less than the monitors capability. This is for some a matter of preference (style?) and for some, a matter of visibility (poor vision).
Since the PocketPC OS and screen unlike a desktop screen cannot yet display multiple resolutions on the same device I believe that MS erred on the side of those whose vision is impaired in some way. I know for example that some of my sight-impaired friends wouldn't want a 2.8" qVGA device like my Wizard and opting instead for one of those giant 3.8" or 4" devices with the same screen resolution.
In reality, Microsoft would do us all a favor by having a higher resolution screen (like VGA 640x480) on all devices regardless of screen physical dimensions and then let the OS display according to user settings. I say this without however, contemplating the drawbacks on battery life which I admit is one of the likely reasons this has not happened.
__________________
Jonathan (JonnoB)
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke
HTML e-mail, what is the big deal with that? I have been able to do this with Windows Mobile 2003 for years using Mail2PDA! Works great.
__________________
Past:Handspring Visor, HP Jornada 568, Toshiba e800, HP hx4700. Current:HP 210 new on 2008-10-17 with Stowaway BT Keyboard & Mouse and Opera Mobile Rules! Its how I created this sig! Powderfinger
So what happened to 320x320? Well, since 320 is 1.5 times larger than 240, and 1.5 times smaller than 480, to handle this resolution Microsoft and all application providers would have to make another icon set, and for those that weren't "320 aware", how do you make a pixel 1.5 times as big as it was, or 1.5 times as small? It just doesn't work out.
Man this explanation is even dumber than the official Microsoft one. There is no need to resize the icons.
Goodness, you certainly do come across as quite caustic and impolite in most of your messages (in this thread at least).
There was an entire topic on the 240x240/320x320 debate on the Windows Mobile Team Blog that covered all the reasons they had not implemented it.
Goodness, you certainly do come across as quite caustic and impolite in most of your messages (in this thread at least).
There was an entire topic on the 240x240/320x320 debate on the Windows Mobile Team Blog that covered all the reasons they had not implemented it.
Essentially, JoeLevi’s summary is entirely correct. See here:
Yes I know. Microsoft has everyone swallowing that idea. I don't. I think it is a pathetic excuse for making a hardware-limiting decision that has nothing to do with the tripe they feed us as a reason. And I'm angry about what I see as lies.
I'm also amused that you feel the need to point out this stuff to me, since you quoted my comment about their wet excuses.
Don't like what I have to say about it? Well I am sure I am more annoyed at MS than you could ever be at me :-)
Yes I know. Microsoft has everyone swallowing that idea. I don't. I think it is a pathetic excuse for making a hardware-limiting decision that has nothing to do with the tripe they feed us as a reason. And I'm angry about what I see as lies.
I'm also amused that you feel the need to point out this stuff to me, since you quoted my comment about their wet excuses.
Don't like what I have to say about it? Well I am sure I am more annoyed at MS than you could ever be at me :-)
First of all, the line I quoted from you was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveHoward999
Man this explanation is even dumber than the official Microsoft one. There is no need to resize the icons.
This implies that you think his explanation and Microsoft's are different, which implies to me that you may not have seen this particular explanation from them.
And frankly, the link is more for others anyway. I understand you have already made up your mind, and there is obviously not going to be any changing of it. But others may be interested in the line of thinking that led to the decisions, and more detail about the possible pitfalls of implementing 320x320.
I'm not sure how this issue has generated so much hostility, but I suppose it is good for people to be pasionate about things.
I will say I would be very interested in any comments Microsoft would make about the new support of 320x320. Obviously, they now feel they have an appropriate solution or workaround. I hope they are right... I really don't want to stare at apps that only fill the upper-left corner of the screen, or have a box around them making them illegible on small screens.
IE
Linear Mode
