[Jason Dunn]

http://pocketnow.com/index.php?a=po...&t=news&id=5056

"I've been wanting to this comparison for a while now, but in order for it to be a fair comparison, I wanted both devices in the test to share the same screen size. Recently I procured an E-TEN Glofiish X800 (which has a 2.8" 480x640 VGA screen), making it a good device to compare to the E-TEN Glofiish X500 (which has a more standard 2.8" 240x320 QVGA screen). As you can see in the video, the VGA screen may be considered a novelty by some unless you do a lot of internet browsing or map viewing on your device."

Brandon Miniman from pocketnow.com has done an excellent job comparing a QVGA to a VGA screen - the video is below and shows some of the differences. All things being equal, I'll always prefer a higher-resolution screen - yet the trade-offs in battery life and performance can't be easily ignored. What's your take on VGA vs. QVGA - is it a must-have or a nice-to-have?

[Jason Dunn]

http://pocketnow.com/index.php?a=po...&t=news&id=5056

"I've been wanting to this comparison for a while now, but in order for it to be a fair comparison, I wanted both devices in the test to share the same screen size. Recently I procured an E-TEN Glofiish X800 (which has a 2.8" 480x640 VGA screen), making it a good device to compare to the E-TEN Glofiish X500 (which has a more standard 2.8" 240x320 QVGA screen). As you can see in the video, the VGA screen may be considered a novelty by some unless you do a lot of internet browsing or map viewing on your device."

Brandon Miniman from pocketnow.com has done an excellent job comparing a QVGA to a VGA screen - the video is below and shows some of the differences. All things being equal, I'll always prefer a higher-resolution screen - yet the trade-offs in battery life and performance can't be easily ignored. What's your take on VGA vs. QVGA - is it a must-have or a nice-to-have?

[buzzard]

Having owned a 4700 with VGA I really miss it and the 2795 I use now is QVGA. QVGA is acceptable but not as nice to look at. I plan on buying the new 210 (or whatever the right number is) later this year and the main reason is the VGA screen.

I'd rate it a nice to have until it comes time to buy, then it morphs into a must have. :devilboy:

[r90a22]

it's a nice to have feature, but I take performance and battery life over a VGA screen anytime. if I need to view something in VGA my laptop does a great job.

[starstreak]

That video is so wrong. It'll be hard to show it on a "you tube" type video. Everything is blurry. The X800 is a bad example of pointing out how "slow" having a VGA screen. From the start, the X800 is SLOW pda. Any way you look at the device. It was said by everybody who owned one. VGA WILL slow down the device, but alot of that was due to the unit being used. And as more and more pdas come out with dedicated GPUs, this will be a mute point.

Its like saying the windows mobile 6 crappy because it pauses and won't pickup all the screen taps on a TILT mobile phone. Its the TILT thats bad. WM6 wasn't at fault.

He should've showed the calender view of agenda with it showing text. Its soo much useable vs a qvga screen.

Again, commenting that the VGA was crappier because its not as bright is the fault of the X800. Not all VGA screens are dimmer. If it was a FACT, then all monitors for homes (which is made the same way) is going to be dimmer the higher the resolution. And that is not the case.

[alese]

I would take a VGA screen over the qVGA anyday, the only problem is that very few devices have VGA and they are mostly hard to get (or even impossible) and expensive.

[alex_kac]

One of the biggest issues with VGA screens is that they put a wonderful screen, but the same amount of RAM and video hardware behind it that a QVGA device has. With that in mind, no wonder its slower. The x800 may be slower overall even if it had QVGA, but this is a normal thing.

[starstreak]

Since they already have GPUs in the newest pdas, I wouldn't worry about it.

Originally Posted by alex_kac

One of the biggest issues with VGA screens is that they put a wonderful screen, but the same amount of RAM and video hardware behind it that a QVGA device has. With that in mind, no wonder its slower. The x800 may be slower overall even if it had QVGA, but this is a normal thing.

[AndyH]

Originally Posted by starstreak

Since they already have GPUs in the newest pdas, I wouldn't worry about it.

GPUs are worthless unless it is supported by software. My O2 Flame (VGA) being a good example with the Nvidia GoForce 5500 GPU. It looks beautiful on a spec sheet but untill Coreplayer (or any other player) supports it, why have it?

[mmidgley]

I have had five QVGA devices, and especially when I moved to converged (so the screen size shrank so the dpi increased) I have never minded it--they look great. Compared to my Apple Newton that was 4bit greyscale they really look great. Then I saw a VGA Dell ppc and it was impressive. PI in month view with mini text is ok on QVGA but rocks in VGA. Then last year I decided it was time to move beyond a WM5 200 omap device. I got one of the first X800's and the screen was awesome! I had to return it as I couldn't make calls. I'm fine with this as I don't think 64 ram is enough (how long will it be before we demand 196 or 256 instead of 128?), no SDHC, and the processor/gpu really needs to support VGA.

I think VGA is just the future of all these devices. I look at my brother's Nokia N800 and N810 and the displays are fabulous. If gpu/cpu's can do better and batteries can handle it (like the 9502's big 1660mah?) then we'll all have these displays. HTC can't hold us back forever!

You can tell I'm watching the 9502. Its spec initially stated 18bit color but has been reduced to 16bit. That's either for processing efficiency, cost reduction, or both. I wonder how much of an impact this will have. The X800 did show banding and other graphic artifacts (even on their bootloader image--you'd think they'd spend a minute in photoshop to optimize it for 16bit color). Any comments on 16 vs 18bit?

m.

[Paragon]

I've owned VGA devices and I've owned QVGA devices. VGA devices are crisper, no doubt. However when you consider the preformance hit, and the necesary increase in RAM and battery size to run a VGA screen, I see little denifite for the minimal difference. When I want to view something that has a great crisp and clear screen I tend to use my 42" widescreen TV, not my sub 3" telephone. MY 2.8" QVGA screen is more than adequate for my viewing needs.

I thing VGA on a 5" screen found on the HTC 7500 ruuning in true VGA mode is absolutely spectacular. It is big enough that even in true VGA characters and icons are easily viewed. On a 2.8" screen everything has to be rendered larger to be viewed, undoing the VGA effect.

I'm all for progress, and I can see many devices using VGA screens in the future but at the moment I don't se a wide NEED for it. I'm quit certain that if you polled the millions and millions of mobile devices users and asked them what VGA is, not many outside of forums such as this would know or care about VGA, or wish the cost of their device be increased to support it.

Dave