I prefer to see this forum as a way to cooperate on a common project, not a discussion contest with winners and losers. Feel free to point out errors in anyone's reasoning, but please don't get angry and personal. Not all disagreements have to be "resolved" until there's one unique "winner" left, maybe because the others have ragequit.
Sometimes it's better to agree to disagree for now and move on to something else.
I prefer to see this forum as a way to cooperate on a common project, not a discussion contest with winners and losers. Feel free to point out errors in anyone's reasoning, but please don't get angry and personal. Not all disagreements have to be "resolved" until there's one unique "winner" left, maybe because the others have ragequit.
Sometimes it's better to agree to disagree for now and move on to something else.
I said that once you admit your conclusion was wrong you must roll back many publicly stated conclusions. Do I need to post the pm so you don't keep changing my words? (EDIT: Done, see below)
When you reacted to your poll, your reaction was, "Well, gee, I win the debate because of X..." (no concession, scroll to the line where he speaks of summarizing categories)
Then when I proceed to tell you X is mathematically incorrect because Y, you ignore Y and paint me as too focused on statistics that are suddenly insignificant or irrelevant.
You can't concede you're incorrect about something, that is what my beef boils down to. Funny how the winning response in your poll entirely contradicts your opinion in the debate that kicked up the two polls in the first place.
(The pm sent to Grench, watch for the demands to bow and lots of threats)
Since we've been clogging up the forums and I'm going to go through the same points, I moved this to pm.
I insist you get your analysis correct before we move forward in conversation. I can't stand conversing with irrational people.
Your categorical sum analysis is objectively wrong. All it takes is one scenario where the analysis becomes absurd to prove this (counterexample).
Ex:
Every person finds every configuration acceptable.
In this example, summing the votes up in each category gives you 7 votes for every SD option, and 6 votes for every microSD. Or, alternatively, I believe you were attempting to categorize by the combination of internal/external and full-size/micro. I didn't read the full post once I saw you missed the point, but perhaps then you get 10 votes for microSD for every 8 full-size SD. Whatever the exact count, maybe microSD ends up winning.
The point is that your conclusion is based on an imbalanced analysis. If every person likes every configuration, how the fuck can one category of configuration come out winning over another??
When I said it was rigged, I didn't mean YOU rigged it intentionally, that was a mistakenly used word by myself. What I meant was the imbalance, and your attempt to analyze based upon any category is objectively wrong for this very reason.
Once you admit this, you have to roll back X number of publicly stated incorrect conclusions because nothing can stand on your faulty logic. I doubt you will do this.
I find it funny how people tend to find arguments in a spam section in the forum, despite the fact that their ideas have little to no effect at all on the final product. How about ya all shut up and just come up with new ideas instead of bashing each other?
I don't really care much for a bigger screen, just definitely one with a higher resolution. And one that works well with fonts and stuff, so that the letters don't become all... blocky and crooked.
You shall have the best possible screen we can get our hands on, and I'm pretty sure by 2013 there will be several true HD screens to choose from, the race to a HD phone is on, and the P2 can benefit from that.
You shall have the best possible screen we can get our hands on, and I'm pretty sure by 2013 there will be several true HD screens to choose from, the race to a HD phone is on, and the P2 can benefit from that.
Whats the benefit of having so many pixels on such a tiny screen? The only thing you will end up with is a loss of performance to display anything. You'll need a monster of a graphic chip (power-consuming, too) just to get a smooth frame rate on True HD. I fail to see the point there. Aren't you aiming at getting great performance instead of having a few more pixels that noone will be able to see anyway ?
Would you have rather we put a 320*240 screen on the Pandora (which, surprisingly is what a vocal minority wanted at the time)?
That would have been a disaster looking back. People made the same arguments about speed and bandwidth updating what was, at the time, a huge 800*480 LCD.
You have to think years in advance with this stuff, and don't worry, the chipsets of 2013 are all about handling HD with ease, because HD screens on small portable devices like phones are where we're heading.
If we don't go HD, in 2014 people will dismiss the P2 because it has a 'crappy, old non HD LCD'.
There is no point in having such a screenresolution as FullHD on a mobile device, even if the industrie wants us to believe that.
Especially for emulated games it's senseless, and even when it comes to webbrowsing... I got a 1280x786 4.2 inch screen here and I see no benefit over the 800x480 screen the pandora in terms of webbrowsing. Things just get to small...
Why not stick to something like 1024x600 or even 800x480? That could well decrease this insane price by 3-digit-number, I guess!
You shall have the best possible screen we can get our hands on, and I'm pretty sure by 2013 there will be several true HD screens to choose from, the race to a HD phone is on, and the P2 can benefit from that.
Whats the benefit of having so many pixels on such a tiny screen? The only thing you will end up with is a loss of performance to display anything. You'll need a monster of a graphic chip (power-consuming, too) just to get a smooth frame rate on True HD. I fail to see the point there. Aren't you aiming at getting great performance instead of having a few more pixels that noone will be able to see anyway ?
Have you seen the retina display on the iphone? Have you noticed how unbelievable beautiful it looks? That's the benefit, everything just looks great on that thing. And the difference between 800x480 to 1280x720 would be pretty obvious. I think it would allow for a much better overall experience with the pandora as well as attracting more customers to it who might have been turned off by a low resolution.
When you say "true HD", do you mean FullHD (1920x1080) or just HD (1280x720 or often 1366x768)?
1080p on a screen smaller than 15" is highly questionable to me. My phone's 4.3" screen is qHD (960x540) so I can easily see 720p resolution being the next step, but for a 4.3" screen I can't imagine 1280x720 being that much better. I would be satisfied if the P2 had a qHD screen instead of a HD screen, unless the screen size is also going to increase.
4.3" is fine for phones, but I think for gaming it would be nice to make it a little larger. Maybe close to 5", but 6" is too big.
Craig has been talking about 1080p screens for a while and was quick to show that Galaxy Note 2 was confirmed to use one (or something close anyway, the 4:3 analog). Only Galaxy Note 2 probably is not using such a screen but sticking with 1280x720. And there's one hell of a difference between 720p and 1080p. Yeah some people are resisting even an increase over 800x480 but a lot of people are okay with a bump here. But who wants 1080p, and who wants it for a legitimate practical reason that isn't based on speculation that anything else will look bad because it won't be what everyone else in the industry will allegedly be using? Yeah, LG announced a 1080p 440ppi display, and someone is probably going to sell a
phone using this display, and it's going to sell based on numbers marketing. Unless everyone else goes crazy this won't become the industry standard.
I hoped that Pandora would be above numbers marketing, but I guess not. Not like this is just a cost increase, the thing will use more power than its lower resolution counterparts, that's just the laws of physics speaking and unavoidable. But who cares if it helps the thing market better in the eyes of the ignorant.
The problem I see here is, that normal linux would be really small because of the high density and would habe to be tweaked to make everything larger like fonts, icons etc. I use win7 on a fullhd screen and a lot of stuff is blurred and doesn't look good.
You will have to tweak every app, the linux desktop, etc for these resolutions. Something like 1024x768 or a 5:3 equivalent is the highest res. That is really practical on a 4-5 inch display imho.
Edit: Of course Android wouldn't have any problems with scaling, but older apps would look bad with it anyway.
The problem I see here is, that normal linux would be really small because of the high density and would habe to be tweaked to make everything larger like fonts, icons etc. I use win7 on a fullhd screen and a lot of stuff is blurred and doesn't look good.
You will have to tweak every app, the linux desktop, etc for these resolutions. Something like 1024x768 or a 5:3 equivalent is the highest res. That is really practical on a 4-5 inch display imho.
Edit: Of course Android wouldn't have any problems with scaling, but older apps would look bad with it anyway.
Not necessarily. Just because the system -can- run at native 1920x1080 (or whatever) doesn't mean that you -have- to. Most video cards can do the scaling on the card. Most monitors can do it on the monitor. Where this happens on an embedded system - I don't know.
Yes, the native resolution would look sharper. Still, you should be able to set it to 640x480 stretched to 1920x1080 or doubled to 1280x960 with bars or stretched with perspective to ####x1080.
Yes, some pixels get translated to two pixels, some get translated to three. But on-device scaling isn't anything new technology wise.
So, you should be able to set the resolution to whatever you want on the device and scale - as long as it is less than native. More than native and you'd wind up with scroll bars on the OS window.
Having a high-high resolution monitor doesn't necessarily mean all things must run at that resolution.
Try checking your scaling properties in your video card driver.
Some monitors do a lousy job of scaling - in which case you might be better off if you have your video card scale the program resolution to the monitor's native resolution.
I'm pretty sure you can do this with the Linux NVIDIA X86 driver - I messed with that a bit when I was running 3 monitors in portrait mode over two GT9800 cards. It was gorgeous, but that was too much resolution to push games through very well. Photo editing on a combined screen the size of a car windshield was cool though.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.