PPC Screen Resolution

[azhiker]

I am really wondering why the PPC still has a 320 by 240 resolution with only 64K colors. With such advancement in chips and screens and with Microsoft improving its operating systems, I would expect more. This was true for laptops over the years, but the PPC seems to stay the same since the first version of Windows CE. The new Ipaq and Toshiba screens are a smidge larger in size but still maintain the same screen resolution. Any step up in resolution would be a vast improvement and may only require a slight size change to PPC overall dimensions. Why not 300 by 400? Why not 320 by 320? Why not 128K colors? Are we getting close to better graphic capability?

Of course I do not know all the complexities on this subject but I thought I would ask.

[KayMan2k]

The graphics controller chip used in the 2215, 5150 and 5550 do not support screen resolution beyond 320x320 (they would need a new video chip company ... erm, ATI .... and maybe the have contracts or business reasons not to make the change?) Also, PocketPC is designed to operate in 4:3 aspect ratio, I don't think 320x320 would be a logical next-step in resoltuon. I could see a 640x480 screen besing used though.. and to be compatible with older apps - it could use 4 pixels to represent 1 pixel to emulate 320x240 in real time. But who knows for sure.. it will come in due time.

[SHoTTa35]

Only 64K? That's tons!! 65,365 (16bit) or something like that colors! I mean, do you really need millions of colors (32Bit) on the PPC ? For that matter do you even need 32bit on a desktop now? Unless you're photo intensive there's no need for that many colors as it'll raise up prices (more complex matrixes) and that's bad in general.

2 - well the next step would be 640 X 480 which would be very good and that's what we're all hoping for next. Screen resolution that high tho would be hard for some people to see on a 3.5" screen. Remember LCDs run best (clearer) at their native reso so even if it be turned back down to 320 X 240 it would look crappy .. real blocky

[TawnerX]

can current small screen LCD display anything beyond 12bit? I don't think the LCD element can dispay such 16bit color depth....

[Prevost]

But WHY should Pocket PC be designed for a 4:3 ratio?

Again, I use Palm. The only thing PPC needs to compete (screen wise) is to at least equal the 320x480 (3:2 ratio) screen on sonys and soon (hopefully) on Palms.

So, who is to blame for this? Billy?

People at, for example, HP, is doing (I believe) a bona fide effort to bring devices that can compete against Palm OS based ones in terms of speed, compactness, ergonomics, and looks. But the things new buyers (and some veterans too) see first, like screen resolution, out-of-the-box ease of access to functions and programs of everyday use, and security over synchronizing, are out of their reach and not so well addressed by the OS. And no way out for them...we are on Billy's hands :twisted: !

Just my opinion. I don't think I am biased no matter what you read from me.

[SHoTTa35]

can current small screen LCD display anything beyond 12bit? I don't think the LCD element can dispay such 16bit color depth....

64K colors is 16bit and yes it uses all of em. THe older 3600 Ipaqs were 12bit (4096 colors) and this is definitely waay better in color saturation than those. So these small LCDs are displaying in 16bit.

When it comes to ease of use out the box i don't think you can beat a familiar windows interface. Same start menu, same way everything works as on most users desktops so training is already there for PPC OS. Palm is a totally new OS and not as simple to me. I've tried em but just can't wrap my mind around it all as some stuff just too complicated to find.

[Prevost]

When it comes to ease of use out the box i don't think you can beat a familiar windows interface. Same start menu, same way everything works as on most users desktops so training is already there for PPC OS. Palm is a totally new OS and not as simple to me. I've tried em but just can't wrap my mind around it all as some stuff just too complicated to find.As a matter of fact, I share your opinion to a point. But I dont find Palm difficult, nor did I when I faced it for the first time...with no manuals.

Thinking it again, Palm home screen is like a Windows Desktop with shortcut icons, without the Start Button (did we have Start Button on Windows 3.0? I dont remember)

Pocket PC "home screen", on the other hand, is (out of the box) like the Desktop only with the Start Button and no shortcut icons.

I think that another think PPC should consider is, what impression it wants to leave to the user? Today Screen make it looks like it just PRETENDS being an organizer. I think both Palms and Pocket PCs are a lot more - pocket computers, ultimately. So I think they should look as what they actually are. In this sense, Palm's approach is better, and of course makes the user feel he has a computer in his hand.

[Pony99CA]

I am really wondering why the PPC still has a 320 by 240 resolution with only 64K colors. With such advancement in chips and screens and with Microsoft improving its operating systems, I would expect more. This was true for laptops over the years, but the PPC seems to stay the same since the first version of Windows CE.

While the Pocket PC (and Palm-Sized PC) OS may have been 320x240, that's not true of Windows CE. The first version of Windows CE supported 480x320 (and I have a Windows CE 1.0 device to back that up). Windows CE 2.0 supported 640x480, and, again, I have the device to prove that. See my Windows CE History (http://www.svpocketpc.com/#HISTORY) for details.

The new Ipaq and Toshiba screens are a smidge larger in size but still maintain the same screen resolution. Any step up in resolution would be a vast improvement and may only require a slight size change to PPC overall dimensions. Why not 300 by 400? Why not 320 by 320? Why not 128K colors? Are we getting close to better graphic capability?

You won't see 128K colors because that would be awkward. 64K colors take 16 bits (or two bytes) for each pixel. 128K colors would require 17 bits, not a good use of space. The next step would be 24-bit color, which gives 16 million colors. Of course, that means you need to manipulate 50% more data to draw a screen.

The same is true of resolution. The higher the resolution, the more computing is necessary to draw a screen.

That's not to say I wouldn't like more colors or a higher resolution, but think what you want to do with it. For example, with higher resolution, you can basically do two things (assuming the screen stays the same size):

Display more items on the screen, but everything will get smaller.
Display everything as is done now, but more smoothly (fewer jaggies).

Are either of those important to you?

Steve

[Bruno Figueiredo]

Display more items on the screen, but everything will get smaller.
Display everything as is done now, but more smoothly (fewer jaggies).

Are either of those important to you?

Well, PPC can't support smaller items on screen as they woulb be impratical to use (imagine a OK button 4 times smaller)

But I think some things are to be attained by displaying smoothly (to read text = books) and maybe a little smaller. Imagine Pocket Word with a bigger toolbar, surfing the web Real Size now...

[Stephen Beesley]

My €0.02....

I am looking forward to a screen resolution of 320 x 480 with easy switching between portrait and landscape mode. That resolution (admittedly on a much bigger screen) worked great on the Newton Mp2ks

Goldtee

[jage]

Why not 128K colors? Are we getting close to better graphic capability?

Of course I do not know all the complexities on this subject but I thought I would ask.

An idea, although I see little reason for more than 16-bit color. As far as I know, 18-bit LCDs are easy to manufacture (6-6-6 bit). Naturally you need 32 bits of memory per pixel in this case, because 24 bits per pixels is very inefficient.

But what about graphics controller that has 32-bit framebuffer and automatically dithers 8-8-8 to 6-6-6. Or one that switches between two automatically generated 6-6-6 images, giving effective 7-7-7 color.

8-8-8 arrangement would also help hardware gamma/contrast/brightness settings, something I'd really like to see the graphics chips to implement.

Then again, I much rather keep 16-bit color speed than want higher color resolution and pay the performance cost. Also with pixel sizes probably going down, dithering will help more, like 2.8"displays or possible ~4" displays at 640x480.

24-bit color would take 2x more graphics bus bandwidth, something that Pocket PCs don't really have that much to begin with.