The trouble with the comparison video is that the video quality is so poor that it really doesn't show you anything. You're just taking his word for what he sees. Mobilyazilar's still shots do a better job of demonstrating the difference between the two resolutions.
All other things equal, I'm sure anyone would rather have a VGA screen, but other things are not equal. It's not really about battery life or speed because manufacturers could take those into account and make devices that accommodated that. The real problem is that so few products are available in VGA that it must be considered just one of many features that drive your buying decision and you can't always let that override everything else.
Axims are not sold any more. For a lot of people, a larger 4" screen device, like on the iPaq 210, is out of the question. Some folks need a phone as part of their PDA and that creates other limitations. For example, Alltel is my phone carrier. I don't have a choice about that. Verizon and T-Mobile don't serve my area. AT&T is very sparse here and doesn't reach my home. Some folks get Sprint, but it's dead between towns around here. So if I actually want a signal, I use Alltel. So someone who says I can't live without VGA, pop on over to the Alltel site and tell me what my VGA options are. (Hint: none.)
I love my 2.8" QVGA Touch. The screen appears sharp and crisp to me. I'm sure it would be even better in VGA, but it doesn't come in VGA so the last thing I want to do is to dwell on how much better it could be and make myself discontent with what I do have. Eventually, I'm sure I'll have a VGA option and then I'll probably take it. In the meantime, what I don't know really doesn't hurt me and I'm content.
remote desktop in VGA just like you looking at your home monitor!
If you run your home monitor in VGA. Might be the case if you are managing a server, but TS into my 24" running 1920x1200, it doesn't much matter if you have VGA or QVGA.
Personally I would take a VGA over a QVGA if they existed. The hits don't bother me. The additional clarity is worth it, even if you don't get any more data on the screen. In fact, as was pointed out in the video, if your eyes aren't that great, the higher resolution, used in hi-res, may not even be readable without reading glasses for some of us.
I actually think referencing pixel density might be a useful spec. 320x240 on a 1.8" screen is a significantly different experience than 320x240 on a 3.8" screen. Certainly you can calculate it, but having it up front would be helpful. Think about your printer. It is spec'd in dots per inch, not just dots up and down. It would be easier to compare dissimilar sized screens.
__________________
Sometimes you are the anteater, sometimes you are the ant.
Remote desktop is a good example, but thats something most people wouldnt use. I thought I would mention that before someone whos rooting for qvga mentions it.
I just saw mobilyazilar screenshots. Oh yeah, sooo much better to understand what people are tlaking about. The auther on this board should get permission and post your pictures here. its a much fairer compairason
I just saw mobilyazilar screenshots. Oh yeah, sooo much better to understand what people are tlaking about. The auther on this board should get permission and post your pictures here. its a much fairer compairason
Oh my God, I have no idea what font that guy is using in his QVGA samples. I have never seen anything so distorted in my life. I don't think that shows anything in reality. I'm fully aware of how much crisper VGA can be but I don't think I've ever seen any type of screen render text like his QVGA samples do. When one does a comparison, it really needs to be fair. I think the PocketNow video does this in a very fair way without manipulating the content to support their own conclusion.
Ignore the first couple of examples then. I think its a normal font. Just looking at the webpage examples should be enough to see the details. I could NOT see any details in the video. Not anything that would make me want vga over qvga.
Update: I figured it out. He said "Word Mobile on the lowest zoom level:
" meaning its zoomed out to its max. Read: smallest print so you can see the most text. Not zoomed in at 100% but probably like zoomed out to 50% or something. Its a fair example because its of text of the same size. Just thats one in the UGLY qvga and the other is in VGA.
"Oh my God, I have no idea what font that guy is using in his QVGA samples. I have never seen anything so distorted in my life."
And that is why you should hate QVGA its unusable to zoom out.
Oh my God, I have no idea what font that guy is using in his QVGA samples. I have never seen anything so distorted in my life.
It's a normal font, just very small. He's trying to show a direct comparison. I you drop standard fonts down to (I forget) 8 or 6 or 4 point or whatever, they look exactly like his images - illegible - when the screen does not have the pixels to show it.
You can show the exact same thing when comparing a 1024x768 screen nect to a 1920x1200 screen. The 1024 screen's text becomes illegible long before it is too small to actually read.
I just saw mobilyazilar screenshots. Oh yeah, sooo much better to understand what people are tlaking about. The auther on this board should get permission and post your pictures here. its a much fairer compairason
Oh my God, I have no idea what font that guy is using in his QVGA samples. I have never seen anything so distorted in my life. I don't think that shows anything in reality. I'm fully aware of how much crisper VGA can be but I don't think I've ever seen any type of screen render text like his QVGA samples do. When one does a comparison, it really needs to be fair. I think the PocketNow video does this in a very fair way without manipulating the content to support their own conclusion.
Dave
Its the default font, Tahoma. I set the zoom level to minimum (50%) on Word Mobile.
The graph is from Joel's Evidence Based Scheduling article. Viewed using IE Mobile in "One Column" mode. It looks better in "Desktop" mode, but as you know you need to scroll horizontally in this mode. Please see this and this photo for comparison. And sorry for the broken digitizer.
If I were trying to manipulate anything, I wouldn't mention the speed and battery life issues.
I just saw mobilyazilar screenshots. Oh yeah, sooo much better to understand what people are tlaking about. The auther on this board should get permission and post your pictures here. its a much fairer compairason
Oh my God, I have no idea what font that guy is using in his QVGA samples. I have never seen anything so distorted in my life. I don't think that shows anything in reality. I'm fully aware of how much crisper VGA can be but I don't think I've ever seen any type of screen render text like his QVGA samples do. When one does a comparison, it really needs to be fair. I think the PocketNow video does this in a very fair way without manipulating the content to support their own conclusion.
Dave
Its the default font, Tahoma. I set the zoom level to minimum (50%) on Word Mobile.
The graph is from Joel's Evidence Based Scheduling article. Viewed using IE Mobile in "One Column" mode. It looks better in "Desktop" mode, but as you know you need to scroll horizontally in this mode. Please see this and this photo for comparison. And sorry for the broken digitizer.
If I were trying to manipulate anything, I wouldn't mention the speed and battery life issues.
Forget the mumbo jumbo. I've never seen a QVGA screen render text like that....never.
I'm not trying to put down VGA. For me, when something gets over sold I tend get turned off by it.
Let's face it.....if a new user of mobile devices was to look at those pictures they would be totally turned off of QVGA, thinking it is completely unreadable. It's far from that. Right!?
I'm glad you liked it!
Linear Mode
