Higher-res screen?

[solarion]

Are there any plans to get a higher-res screen on the successor to the n900? Although I can use the n810 (and therefore likely the n900) for reading articles (two-column PDFs) in evince (portrait mode FTW), I have to scroll up and down the screen since the res isn't quite high enough for a full page. My EEE 901 can do it just fine, so I suspect that the 1024x600 screen is the minimum resolution for reading a full page of PDF.

So, the question is are there any plans on the table to up the screen size for Harmattan's corresponding device? We can't stay resolution king forever at 800x480! :)

[ysss]

Really? For a 3.5" screen...?

[solarion]

Absolutely. I can definitely see the difference.

[ysss]

Oh, I'm sure the difference will still be visible.

What I meant was, the additional detail between 800x480 vs 1024x600 on a 3.5" screen will need to be seen extremely closely or with a loupe to be useful\practical.

[lma]

Who says that all Maemo devices from now on have to have a 3.5" screen?

[eiffel]

Kate Alhola's "Qt on Maemo (http://akademy2008.kde.org/conference/slides/maemo_qt.pdf)" presentation made strongly suggested that Maemo is specifically for "800x480 touch screens" for the foreseeable future.

Who says that all Maemo devices from now on have to have a 3.5" screen?
Who knows, we might even see a 3.0" Maemo screen in the future. But again, Kate's presentation strongly suggested that we won't see it on "small phones", so I don't expect to find Maemo on (e.g.) a 2.0" screen.

Regards,
Roger

[fms]

Are there any plans to get a higher-res screen on the successor to the n900?
How much more hires do you want the 3.5" screen to be? It is already unreadable when the fonts are rendered at maximal screen resolution. With a bigger screen, it would make sense.

[ragnar]

The more pixels you have, the slower the device becomes. On some levels it is almost directly (inversely) proportional. The device would be already faster if the display resolution would be lower. So yes, it's fun to dream, but you need to be also aware of what the drawback is. :)

[ysss]

I'd be all for it if it's "FREE": in terms of production cost, development costs and operational cost. But that's never the case.

Production cost = higher price per unit
Development cost = there may be a need to make additional UI assets OR longer testing because you're targeting multiple 'platform' (loosely used, meaning 2 different resolutions).
Operation cost = Eats up more CPU\GPU during operation. Uses more RAM and storage space if higher resolution assets are used.

So if the payoff is worthwhile, then by all means go for it.
But if you're not getting significantly better experience from it or if it may even lower the system's performance because it taxes more resources, then wtf?

[solarion]

Oh, I'm sure the difference will still be visible.

What I meant was, the additional detail between 800x480 vs 1024x600 on a 3.5" screen will need to be seen extremely closely or with a loupe to be useful\practical.

I disagree. At least on my n810, a full article page (in portrait mode; full height, because the page is too wide for the display) being accommodated on the screen causes the text to almost but not quite be legible (the letters are smudgey). This is not true on my EEE 901.

[Hogwash]

Oh, I'm sure the difference will still be visible.

What I meant was, the additional detail between 800x480 vs 1024x600 on a 3.5" screen will need to be seen extremely closely or with a loupe to be useful\practical.

My eyeballs would implode

[ysss]

@solarion: ok, again the key here is the screen size.
even if you can squeeze 1920x1080 onto a 3.5" display and it may have the resolution to show 8 pages on screen at the same time but will it be practical to use it on that size?

[wazd]

3.5" 800x480 is so eye-burning crisp that increased resolution will just significantly raise the cost and nothing else.

[attila77]

I wish I had your eyesight, I'm having serious trouble with the N900 as is - my eyes simply fail me, after 15 mins of reading it takes me 15 more minutes to adapt back to my natural dioptry. The N810 screen when picked up after the N900 looks huge (it's much more pronounced than the difference when going DOWN to the 3.5" size). Also, I kind of miss the buttons as fullscreening as-is on Fremantle is just not that much fun - especially for apps like the RSS reader, I hope this changes until the final release :(

[solarion]

Mabye the extra 0.6" makes a difference. It's possible. I'll know whenever I can afford an n900 or successor. I'm just sayin' that at least on the n810, the resolution is *just* a little to low to make reading a full column possible. The text is just a *little* too smudgey. If you add 60% more pixels, it works fine. That's the empirical data with which I have to work.

The workaround is to zoom a little, and then pan up and down, which sucks.

Maybe my perfect device for reading articles will never exist. :(

[c0rt3x]

The more pixels you have, the slower the device becomes. On some levels it is almost directly (inversely) proportional. The device would be already faster if the display resolution would be lower. So yes, it's fun to dream, but you need to be also aware of what the drawback is. :)

I don't think the performance will decrease, considering the 770 could run 800x480 without significant problems. A device with about 10 times more processing power should be able to handle a 2 times higher resolution.

The real questions are whether the difference will be notable, and if that difference will be worth the increase of the cost.

[mece]

4.3" screen and 1280x720 would be very nice. That's what I want in my next device (after the N900), and yes. 800x480 is nice, but it's not perfect. More is better imo.

[c0rt3x]

4.3" screen and 1280x720 would be very nice. That's what I want in my next device (after the N900), and yes. 800x480 is nice, but it's not perfect. More is better imo.

Agreed, but 800x480 is probably the optimal res for OMAP3.

[mikec]

There appears to be confusion between resolution and UI size.

No reason why a 1280x720 screen on 3.5inch cant work. You just need to optimize the fonts and rendering. The Linux boys are moving towards SVG for UI elements so that they scale without jaggies for instance.

Mike C

[ysss]

The main problem here is that your intended document was not designed to be displayed in small screens in the first place. If it was, then it should support reflow-able text.

To take this issue to the extreme, imagine trying to read a plain 'ol newspaper rendered as a PDF. You can ask for a 2560x2048 3.5" screen (or whatever) to be able to render the whole width of the content but you'll still end up finding the bottleneck elsewhere (your eyes).

[ragnar]

I don't think the performance will decrease, considering the 770 could run 800x480 without significant problems. A device with about 10 times more processing power should be able to handle a 2 times higher resolution.


The 770 didn't run 800x480 well, the framerates were generally bad. Let's not fool ourselves with that.

The performance would decrease with increased resolution. What the cpu speed is doesn't have a direct correlation here. The display bandwidths are mostly separate, although you naturally need the cpu in determining what the content on screen should be. That's not the bottleneck in most cases: processing and determining the content doesn't take so much cpu power.

Simplying the issue, one can say that the amount of pixels you can push on screen per second is fixed. The more pixels each frame has, the less frames per second you can do. If the device would be 480x320 resolution, it would be a lot faster in many cases.

[solarion]

The main problem here is that your intended document was not designed to be displayed in small screens in the first place. If it was, then it should support reflow-able text.

To take this issue to the extreme, imagine trying to read a plain 'ol newspaper rendered as a PDF. You can ask for a 2560x2048 3.5" screen (or whatever) to be able to render the whole width of the content but you'll still end up finding the bottleneck elsewhere (your eyes).

If you'd like to reform the entire scientific publishing establishment, be my guest. Or perhaps you could code a PDF reflower. Please note that it must reflow scanned articles as well; just because a paper was from the 1960s, doesn't meant that it's useless!

Sadly, the screen is the easier thing to fix IMHO.

[solarion]

The 770 didn't run 800x480 well, the framerates were generally bad. Let's not fool ourselves with that.

The performance would decrease with increased resolution. What the cpu speed is doesn't have a direct correlation here. The display bandwidths are mostly separate, although you naturally need the cpu in determining what the content on screen should be. That's not the bottleneck in most cases: processing and determining the content doesn't take so much cpu power.

Simplying the issue, one can say that the amount of pixels you can push on screen per second is fixed. The more pixels each frame has, the less frames per second you can do. If the device would be 480x320 resolution, it would be a lot faster in many cases.

Please quantify. I certainly agree that, in principle, more pixels => slower. However, how much slower is the question.

[Nathan]

800x480 = 384000 Pixels
1024x600 = 614400 Pixels
1280x720 = 972800 Pixels.

By jumping from the current screen size to 1024x600 you almost double the amount of pixels per screen refresh. If you jump to 1280 it is almost 3 times the amount of pixels. This would mean the processor/graphics system would have to handle a LOT more data per-refresh.

Nathan

[solarion]

800x480 = 384000 Pixels
1024x600 = 614400 Pixels
1280x720 = 972800 Pixels.

By jumping from the current screen size to 1024x600 you almost double the amount of pixels per screen refresh. If you jump to 1280 it is almost 3 times the amount of pixels. This would mean the processor/graphics system would have to handle a LOT more data per-refresh.

Nathan

And what is it capable of? What lag would we be discussing? I'm well familiar with how to caculate the number of pixels; 1024x600 is (approximately) 4 and a half times the number of pixels in 480x281. That doesn't tell us how much faster 480x281 is than 1024x600.

Give me actual performance information. What is the n900 capable of pushing at what rate? Benchmarks on the various devices would be nice too.

[solarion]

FWIW, TI says OMAP3430 supports up to 1024x768. (http://focus.ti.com/general/docs/wtbu/wtbuproductcontent.tsp?contentId=14649&navigationId=12643&templateId=6123)

I'd presume that it should work "fine" (for whatever they determine to be "fine") at that resolution.

[solarion]

Well, a Nokiite sez that the OMAP3430 doesn't have the memory <-> GPU bandwidth for 1024x768, so the idea is pretty dead for the n900 (which is true anyway). Perhaps not for later versions, however.

[Nathan]

FWIW, TI says OMAP3430 supports up to 1024x768. (http://focus.ti.com/general/docs/wtbu/wtbuproductcontent.tsp?contentId=14649&navigationId=12643&templateId=6123)

I'd presume that it should work "fine" (for whatever they determine to be "fine") at that resolution.

Two things along about this. Just because the device "supports" it; doesn't mean it supports it well. I've seen a lot of graphics cards in my 20 years say they "support" x; but really they support x / 2 well.

Second, Since this is a embedded OpenGL/es device also; their is no probably way the /es portion would probably support 1024x768 at any decent frame rate. In fact I personally hope the OpenGL/es device can handle the current resolution at a good frame rate.

Nathan.

[Corwin_bg]

I fail to see how adding more pixels will help anyone reading a PDF. Adding more pixels and increasing the display size sure will, but we'll be moving out of phone territory then.

[Alex Atkin UK]

Personally, I wish it had HDMI output on the thing and allowed at least a higher resolution for that. It could have been really useful for presentations via a projector, monitor, HDTV, etc.

In fact, it could have asked you if you want "TV Out" or "PC Mode" when plugging in the HDMI cable. PC Mode being a full lightweight window manager with mouse cursor etc, like a desktop PC. It could support bluetooth keyboard and mouse or even switch the touchscreen into touchpad mode so it could work without any extra peripherals at all.

Apart from the lack of a HDMI port and perhaps not enough space on root, I suspect the hardware would be perfectly capable of this comfortably including 720p video playback as there have already been confirmation that it downscales 720p to 800x480 without any problems. (granted, that does not prove the GPU can push 1280x720 at 60fps)

I think its only a matter of time before we have this in our pockets. There are already UMPCs that can do this, but they are so expensive. But I totally expect ARM to be able to handle this too, its just nobody is vying for that market yet.

[javispedro]

I disagree. At least on my n810, a full article page (in portrait mode; full height, because the page is too wide for the display) being accommodated on the screen causes the text to almost but not quite be legible (the letters are smudgey). This is not true on my EEE 901.

But but but your eee PC has a lower DPI! :eek: Last time I looked at that model it was around 150, so that shouldn't be possible.

[solarion]

But but but your eee PC has a lower DPI! Last time I looked at that model it was around 150, so that shouldn't be possible.

It's possible because it's true. I don't know much about your theory of DPI -> Smudginess/clarity for reading PDFs, but it doesn't seem to hold up to my empirical observation.

[solarion]

I fail to see how adding more pixels will help anyone reading a PDF. Adding more pixels and increasing the display size sure will, but we'll be moving out of phone territory then.

Because it gives more pixels/glyph, thereby decreasing the smudginess. I've given data points. Please bring concrete facts to the table too.

[Bundyo]

Are you bringing any? I don't see smudginess comparison table... ;)

[javispedro]

Well, DPI is exactly what you call "pixels/glyph", thus: less DPI on your eeePC -> less pixels/glyph -> more smudginess than your N810. If you think otherwise then we don't share the same definition of smudginess I think.

Or there's some extra stuff we're not considering, like better font rendering.

[Alex Atkin UK]

There is extra stuff you are not considering, the eyesight of the user.

What is smudgy to one person can be clarity to another. It all depends how well you personally can resolve the resolution on the screen and naturally gets easier the larger the display size.

I do love high resolution small displays, as they have a paper-like quality due to the high DPI. However you still tend to have to zoom web sites a little even if they fit perfectly, for legibility.

[solarion]

Are you bringing any? I don't see smudginess comparison table... ;)

I have brought other facts (links to TI sites, etc.) but you're right. I could try to do a screenshot with a full-page render. I'll do so when I get a chance.

[solarion]

Well, DPI is exactly what you call "pixels/glyph", thus: less DPI on your eeePC -> less pixels/glyph -> more smudginess than your N810. If you think otherwise then we don't share the same definition of smudginess I think.

Or there's some extra stuff we're not considering, like better font rendering.

No, DPI is "Dots Per Inch". DPG would be Dots Per Glyph, which is dependent upon font size and DPI, which is what I'm getting at. I'd like to render a full column of a two-column US Letter sized PDF, i.e. a US-based science article (here, physics).

Regardless, your allegation is false; I can clearly read a full column (as described above) on my eee 901 despite your protestations to the contrary.

[solarion]

There is extra stuff you are not considering, the eyesight of the user.

What is smudgy to one person can be clarity to another. It all depends how well you personally can resolve the resolution on the screen and naturally gets easier the larger the display size.

I do love high resolution small displays, as they have a paper-like quality due to the high DPI. However you still tend to have to zoom web sites a little even if they fit perfectly, for legibility.

Sure, except that there's a clear, resolution-dependent limit. For instance, try to render the letter "a" into one pixel.

I've looked at it closely, and it looks to me that there just aren't enough (but *almost* enough) pixels per glyph at a full page length (i.e. full column).

[Alex Atkin UK]

True, but it sounds like you are comparing a 10" 1024x600 screen to a 3.5" 800x480 one. Naturally, the former will look better but it would be pointless (not to mention insanely expensive) having a 3.5" 1024x600 screen. Sure it would render the font better, but to the human eye it would still look a blur.

My Xperia X1 had a 3" 800x480 screen and rendered pages with great detail, but I still found the smaller font sizes hard to read and ultimately sold it for the N900 hoping the extra .5" will help. The DPI was so high you could hardly tell the difference with anti-alising on or off, clearly your eye is starting to struggle to distinguish details at that point. A DPI any higher than that would go from hard to impossible and you cannot go much more than 4" in screen size before its too big to carry around in your day to day life.

Believe me, if it worked I would be all for it. But I found the iPod Touch far more usable for web browsing than my Xperia X1, purely because the DPI was just too high for such a small screen.

[attila77]

No, DPI is "Dots Per Inch". DPG would be Dots Per Glyph, which is dependent upon font size and DPI, which is what I'm getting at. I'd like to render a full column of a two-column US Letter sized PDF, i.e. a US-based science article (here, physics).

This part is irrelevant - you can render any document size on any display, it is 'only' the question of readability. On a 3.5" display you are talking about sub-millimeter sized letters, and if that's acceptable, I'd like to ask for a second opinion from your ophthalmologist :) Seriously, try it out on a N900 if you can, for example in terminal, you can use *really* small fonts but it's not pleasant at all, especially for prolonged use (like books and publications). And it's not the point of not having enough pixels, stuff simply gets so small you literally have to look at it like a baby, having the device 10cm from your eyes.

[javispedro]

I can clearly read a full column (as described above) on my eee 901 despite your protestations to the contrary.But then we're back to the fact the eee 901 has a larger screen...

[solarion]

This part is irrelevant - you can render any document size on any display, it is 'only' the question of readability. On a 3.5" display you are talking about sub-millimeter sized letters, and if that's acceptable, I'd like to ask for a second opinion from your ophthalmologist :) Seriously, try it out on a N900 if you can, for example in terminal, you can use *really* small fonts but it's not pleasant at all, especially for prolonged use (like books and publications). And it's not the point of not having enough pixels, stuff simply gets so small you literally have to look at it like a baby, having the device 10cm from your eyes.

I'll try it out on an n900 when I can. "When" being the operable word here. :(

(FWIW, I usually have very small fonts)

[solarion]

But then we're back to the fact the eee 901 has a larger screen...

Your claim was:


But but but your eee PC has a lower DPI! Last time I looked at that model it was around 150, so that shouldn't be possible.

Assuming that the "that" you're talking about is reading a full column of text, I claim that it *is* possible. You're arguing in circles.

[solarion]

This part is irrelevant - you can render any document size on any display, it is 'only' the question of readability. On a 3.5" display you are talking about sub-millimeter sized letters, and if that's acceptable, I'd like to ask for a second opinion from your ophthalmologist :) Seriously, try it out on a N900 if you can, for example in terminal, you can use *really* small fonts but it's not pleasant at all, especially for prolonged use (like books and publications). And it's not the point of not having enough pixels, stuff simply gets so small you literally have to look at it like a baby, having the device 10cm from your eyes.

Also, this depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Or, more accurately, what "rendering" means. Yes, you can technically render the entire works of Dickens into 1 pixel, but I'd not really call this "rendering".

Second, upon what do you base your "sub-millimeter sized letters" claim? On my n810, a full column of text (rotate right, and fit to page width) gives a letter size of approximately 3mm high and 2mm wide (eyeball guesstimation; I don't have a ruler handy). n810 has a 4.1" screen, and n900 has a 3.5" screen. .6" is approximately a 15% reduction in diagonal length. At 3x2mm, this is becomes 2.55x1.7mm. I think this would still be legible.

Anyhow, it's clear we have a disagreement here. I go with whatever. It's not like I'm a nokia designer or anything. Nokia has my feedback if they want it. If you want to keep telling me that I don't want what I want, then please keep talking and kudosing yourselves.

[solarion]

Here, for reference, is the same page, rendered using evince (2.28.0 on the eee, 2.21.1 on the n810) at 800x480 (n810) and 1024x600 (eee 901). Screenshots were taken with gimp (eee; compression level 3) and screenshot-tool (n810).

800x480:
http://digitasaru.net/evince-800x480.png

1024x600:
http://digitasaru.net/evince-1024x600.png

[solarion]

The file, it should be mentioned, is ArXiv_0710.0622v1.pdf. You can get it from arxiv.org

[ysss]

Ummm I don't think ANYONE here questions the fact that higher resolution provides more detail and clarity when rendering a document (PDF in your specific case).

The only concern is applying the high resolution display to a such small physical screen area that it's not practical anymore. That the benefit is lost due to other bottlenecks (your frickin eyes) meanwhile it puts unnecessary burden to the system, cost and whatever else.

Please reread all the previous posts with this fact in mind and I think we'll be on the same page.

[solarion]

Ummm I don't think ANYONE here questions the fact that higher resolution provides more detail and clarity when rendering a document (PDF in your specific case).

The only concern is applying the high resolution display to a such small physical screen area that it's not practical anymore. That the benefit is lost due to other bottlenecks (your frickin eyes) meanwhile it puts unnecessary burden to the system, cost and whatever else.

That might be; that's why we need to quantify, something people have thus far failed to do.


Please reread all the previous posts with this fact in mind and I think we'll be on the same page.

That gate swings both ways, friend.

[attila77]

Here are two snaps. I didn't rotate them as the built-in pdf reader doesn't support rotation(yet), but the width (and thus letter size) is about right. I have no idea how you judged 3mm high characters on a N810. That would mean (huge) 1cm letters on a US letter sized paper.

You can clearly see the letters fitting between the 1mm lines (the sub/superscripts being less than 0.5mm). Reading this is NOT convenient, more resolution would NOT make it better from a practical standpoint (only more tempting to mess up your eyesight). There is only so much your eyes can resolve.

[solarion]

Here are two snaps. I didn't rotate them as the built-in pdf reader doesn't support rotation(yet), but the width (and thus letter size) is about right. I have no idea how you judged 3mm high characters on a N810. That would mean (huge) 1cm letters on a US letter sized paper.

You can clearly see the letters fitting between the 1mm lines (the sub/superscripts being less than 0.5mm). Reading this is NOT convenient, more resolution would NOT make it better from a practical standpoint (only more tempting to mess up your eyesight). There is only so much your eyes can resolve.

Yay! DATA!

I'm not used to metric, so my guesstimation is pretty clearly off. Since you got me back on it, I've hunted down a ruler. On the n810, the letters in my situation at full column are approximately 1mm tall, and 0.75mm wide. By way of comparison, the letters on my gnome-terminals are 1.5mm tall by 1mm wide (eee 901). I use the eee 901 on my laptop with good results on a regular basis. I have to hold the n810 closer, but it works (aside from the low-res-induced smudginess). You're right; that'd be sub-mm.

The other part of your post doesn't have data; only assertions. "Reading this is NOT convenient, more resolution would NOT make it better from a practical standpoint (only more tempting to mess up your eyesight). There is only so much your eyes can resolve."

I dunno; we need some numbers here. It works for me: I read books in fbreader at similar (not same) size.

[ysss]

I find it amusing that we are being pressed to come up with the data to back up what seems to be common sense to me, while the viewpoint that challenges the common sense doesn't have much to back it up.

[attila77]

The other part of your post doesn't have data; only assertions. "Reading this is NOT convenient, more resolution would NOT make it better from a practical standpoint (only more tempting to mess up your eyesight). There is only so much your eyes can resolve."

I dunno; we need some numbers here. It works for me: I read books in fbreader at similar (not same) size.

I cannot quantify convenience for you, I don't have a 1000 people of various age, gender and eye-conditions at hand :) Some people have better vision than others, true. I'm not at all convinced, however, that there is a sufficient (%) amount of people out there who would appreciate (=see) the difference in higher resolution for this particular use-case, considering the extra engineering and cost involved.

Also, I'm not kidding about the danger of prolonged short-focusing on your eye (which is a result of holding the device closer to your eyes so you can make out the small but high-res letters). DO ask an ophthalmologist.

[mece]

Naturally, the former will look better but it would be pointless (not to mention insanely expensive) having a 3.5" 1024x600 screen. Sure it would render the font better, but to the human eye it would still look a blur.

Terry Gilliam solved this already back in 1985:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_e9-aPiYWGig/SVT4vthup7I/AAAAAAAAAE0/BXga6bC9gfU/s400/computer.jpg

I am so creating a dock like this for my N900 :)

EDIT: typo

[edt]

This part is irrelevant - you can render any document size on any display, it is 'only' the question of readability. On a 3.5" display you are talking about sub-millimeter sized letters, and if that's acceptable, I'd like to ask for a second opinion from your ophthalmologist :) Seriously, try it out on a N900 if you can, for example in terminal, you can use *really* small fonts but it's not pleasant at all, especially for prolonged use (like books and publications). And it's not the point of not having enough pixels, stuff simply gets so small you literally have to look at it like a baby, having the device 10cm from your eyes.

And once you hit your mid fortys holding it 10cm from your eyes just reveals a blur. The n900's small screen size is a really show stopper for me. The character size on n8x0 is on the edge of what I can use.

I would love a _tablet_ with a 1024x600 screen that could optionally function as a phone. It should have usb slot(s) designed for a 3g doggle and an optional gps. This would make it easier for Nokia to sell the tablet as it would not need to be certified as a 'phone' and the cell companies could make money by selling the doggles and plans along with IP phone software (I want to be able to recieve a call). In my case the internet functions are _much_ more important than the phone functions. The characters need to be big enough to see without zooming and the screen large enough to avoid most panning. No need for a HW keyboard either.

[solarion]

I find it amusing that we are being pressed to come up with the data to back up what seems to be common sense to me, while the viewpoint that challenges the common sense doesn't have much to back it up.

"Common Sense is neither common nor sensical. Much of what passes for common sense is not based on any underlying principle it’s just anecdotes that have worked for the current situation." - Benjamin Franklin

Thus far, I'm the main one providing actual, concrete data. (many thanks to those who are the exception to the rule!) In addition, I'm being told that I either I'm not seeing what I'm seeing, or I shouldn't be doing what I'm doing.

Yeah, I kinda object to that without concrete facts.

[attila77]

I would love a _tablet_ with a 1024x600 screen that could optionally function as a phone. It should have usb slot(s) designed for a 3g doggle and an optional gps.

Coincidentally that is the *exact* specification of the Touchbook :)

[solarion]

And once you hit your mid fortys holding it 10cm from your eyes just reveals a blur. The n900's small screen size is a really show stopper for me. The character size on n8x0 is on the edge of what I can use.

I would love a _tablet_ with a 1024x600 screen that could optionally function as a phone. It should have usb slot(s) designed for a 3g doggle and an optional gps. This would make it easier for Nokia to sell the tablet as it would not need to be certified as a 'phone' and the cell companies could make money by selling the doggles and plans along with IP phone software (I want to be able to recieve a call). In my case the internet functions are _much_ more important than the phone functions. The characters need to be big enough to see without zooming and the screen large enough to avoid most panning. No need for a HW keyboard either.

They're right; you need to specify a physical size of the screen. Theoretically, you could make a 1024x600 screen out of a lattice of RGB-emitting atoms (Hmm. a trip to the patent office for me? ;), but 1024*3 atoms is kinda small to be readily visible.

What we're arguing about is whether anyone would notice the difference between 1024x600 and 800x480 on a 4.1" or 3.5" screen (n810 and n900, respectively).

That said, I'd desperately *love* an ARM-based tablet that's either A4 or letter-sized with sufficient res to display a full-page PDF (and interact with it). The n810 *just* works for most of a column, as I discussed above. Screw Microsoft's overpriced Tablet PC; it's like going from desktop->laptop; pay more for less speed, storage ,etc.

[solarion]

I cannot quantify convenience for you, I don't have a 1000 people of various age, gender and eye-conditions at hand :) Some people have better vision than others, true. I'm not at all convinced, however, that there is a sufficient (%) amount of people out there who would appreciate (=see) the difference in higher resolution for this particular use-case, considering the extra engineering and cost involved.

That's an entirely reasonable point. I don't know how many would notice (let alone be willing to pay, whatever the difference in price is) for the higher-screen. This is what market tests are for, though.


Also, I'm not kidding about the danger of prolonged short-focusing on your eye (which is a result of holding the device closer to your eyes so you can make out the small but high-res letters). DO ask an ophthalmologist.

I've not experienced eye strain to date.

[javispedro]

What we're arguing about is whether anyone would notice the difference between 1024x600 and 800x480 on a 4.1" or 3.5" screen (n810 and n900, respectively).
Ok then. Where's the data you provided for that? Saying "i can see PDFs better in eeePC 901" does not prove it because it has a bigger screen (and a lower DPI!).

In fact, I think there's no way to argue this at all. Since it all depends on one's eyesight. What data can one bring, other than his own anecdotes?

EDIT: And, as a nice anecdote, the second sentence I hear most after showing somebody the N810 is "how can you read those small letters?".

[solarion]

Ok then. Where's the data you provided for that? Saying "i can see PDFs better in eeePC 901" does not prove it because it has a bigger screen (and a lower DPI!).

Umm, I provided a screenshot? I provided glyph sizes? I've done most of what I can think of atm.

(and the "lower DPI" directly contradicts the claim you made when you brought in the DPI argument,. which was that I can't view full page PDF on a lower-DPI device, i.e. the EEE)

In fact, I think there's no way to argue this at all. Since it all depends on one's eyesight.

You're not arguing, you're disputing. Bring facts to back up your assertions, and you'll be arguing.

The bigger question is whether I'm an anomaly (see the comments above on this page), and I can't answer that question. It's quite possible that others wouldn't be able to notice enough of a difference to warrant paying whatever the difference in price is (if, indeed, there is a "noticeable" (i.e. one that'll make the customer think again) difference).

[javispedro]

(Sorry for editing the message while you were replying, I'm not going to do that again).
Umm, I provided a screenshot? I provided glyph sizes? I've done most of what I can think of atm.And what does a screenshot prove? Other than rendering with higher DPI results in higher font quality, which is common sense. What does this have to do with eyesight?
(and the "lower DPI" directly contradicts the claim you made when you brought in the DPI argument,. which was that I can't view full page PDF on a lower-DPI device, i.e. the EEE)You're exaggerating (note I only mentioned smudginess, not that "you couldn't read"). But I think I'm finally starting to understand what you mean with "smudginess".

Please note DPI means two things here. A screen has a "real" DPI, basically "#pixels/#inchs". A font rendered also has a DPI setting, which instructs it how many pixels tall a X pt font will be. The real DPI of your eeePC 901 is lower than the N810. The font renderer DPI (let's call it "Evince's zoom") is higher in your 1024 screenshot than your 800 one.

The bigger question is whether I'm an anomalySorry, but I have to say yes. You think the smudginess you see can be fixed by adding more pixels. Can you read a 8pt at the default 96dpi setting in the tablet? I hardly can.
Now try the same experiment on your eeePC.

[attila77]

Without obligations, just had my macro stuff on my cam. If you thought the first image shows a stylus in front of some text, you were wrong - it's a pin and a N900 (the second image gives the pin away doesn't it ? :) ). For our US friends, the euro coin is in size halfway between a nickel and a quarter.

[solarion]

(Sorry for editing the message while you were replying, I'm not going to do that again).
And what does a screenshot prove?

That the same page rendered at 1024x600 works better than at 800x480. I believe you agreed with this assessment.

[/quote]
Other than rendering with higher DPI results in higher font quality, which is common sense.[/quote]
DPI is a red herring at the moment. We're not talking Inches, we're talking Pixels. We're rendering a page of a PDF at one res vs another.

What does this have to do with eyesight?

Nothing; you're brining eyesight into it. It's your assertion that I can't be seeing what I'm seeing.


Please note DPI means two things here. A screen has a "real" DPI, basically "#pixels/#inchs". A font rendered also has a DPI setting, which instructs it how many pixels tall a X pt font will be.

The real DPI of your eeePC 901 is lower than the N810.

Yes.

The font renderer DPI (let's call it "Evince's zoom") is higher in your 1024 screenshot than your 800 one.

Yes. This is a fundamental problem of rendering a continuous thing to a discrete system.


Sorry, but I have to say yes.


Right, then we agree that rendering the same text with more pixels will get you a better result. Yay!


You think the smudginess you see can be fixed by adding more pixels.


Yes, I think we agree that rendering the same text at higher res (i.e. higher pixels per glyph) would generally render the text clearer.


Can you read a 8pt at the default 96dpi setting in the tablet? I hardly can.

Yes. I can, at approximately 2 feet from my eyes. (Checked on the n810 with terminal set to 8pt). 6pt is possible at shorter range (1 foot).


Now try the same experiment on your eeePC.

The fonts on my eee are at 6pt, and I read them with the eee on my lap (approx 3-4 ft).

[solarion]

Without obligations, just had my macro stuff on my cam. If you thought the first image shows a stylus in front of some text, you were wrong - it's a pin and a N900 (the second image gives the pin away doesn't it ? :) ). For our US friends, the euro coin is in size halfway between a nickel and a quarter.

Interesting. Thanks for the post! (Interesting to see how it renders glyphs into 2-4 pixels!)

Perhaps I could do the same with my camera at home (isn't very fancy, sadly)

[solarion]

(note that at low pt, you get smudginess now that you're rendering a glyph into just a couple of px! It's not fast 'cause you have to actively think more about what the glyph is)

[solarion]

(also, according to "appearance properties," my eee is set at 96dpi for font rendering)

The font rendering system has a non-trivial contribution here; it's entirely possible that more clever rendering could make a lower-res screen much more usable for me.

[ysss]

Solarion, please read this post... 2 pages ago:

http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=351356&postcount=48

Ummm I don't think ANYONE here questions the fact that higher resolution provides more detail and clarity when rendering a document (PDF in your specific case).

The only concern is applying the high resolution display to a such small physical screen area that it's not practical anymore. That the benefit is lost due to other bottlenecks (your frickin eyes) meanwhile it puts unnecessary burden to the system, cost and whatever else.

Please reread all the previous posts with this fact in mind and I think we'll be on the same page.

[solarion]

Right, so what are we fighting about then? Are you telling me I'm not seeing what I'm seeing?

[attila77]

Right, so what are we fighting about then? Are you telling me I'm not seeing what I'm seeing?

It's the other way round. We're the ones not seeing ! :D

Perhaps I could do the same with my camera at home (isn't very fancy, sadly)

The images were made with a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens (literally the cheapest Nikon lens ever) and an ancient Nikon D70, so nothing particularly fancy (more like clunky :) )

[solarion]

It's the other way round. We're the ones not seeing !

Right, then we have a plan: we will have to meet over beers at a future maemo event (if I can ever get to one). :)


The images were made with a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens (literally the cheapest Nikon lens ever) and an ancient Nikon D70, so nothing particularly fancy (more like clunky )


I have a Canon S2; it may or may not be able to address this. Only experimenting will tell. :)

[bandora]

IMHO I think Nokia should include in future devices an option to let the user to decide between a couple of resolutions.. Since it's a "computer" it should be able to do that.. Everyone has their own favor (it's not ALWAYS having a higher resolution means better for everyone).. ;)

[c0rt3x]

Higher resolution shouldn't be expected before OMAP4 hardware arrives, which pretty much means we'll have to wait until at least 2011.

There are several reasons why the Maemo 6 equipped devices will have the same screen resolution as the currenct Maemo products; mainly because they'll use similar OMAP3 hardware (perhaps slightly more powerful than the N900, but it won't be a significant difference), and because it'll be targeted at the mainstream (where additional costs aren't welcome). The least likely possibility is that the future devices might have capacitive screens (which lacks precision, thus a high-res screen won't be necessary).

However, there are some (although slim) chances of a hardcore OMAP4/Maemo 7 tablet with not only increased screen resolution and lack of phone capabilities, but also (hopefully) bigger screen as well. The existance of such a device by then (about 2011) wouldn't be well-timed, as it'd be too late for a N8x0 successor, and the lack of phone capabilities would limit it to a certain niche.

[solarion]

Higher resolution shouldn't be expected before OMAP4 hardware arrives, which pretty much means we'll have to wait until at least 2011.

There are several reasons why the Maemo 6 equipped devices will have the same screen resolution as the currenct Maemo products; mainly because they'll use similar OMAP3 hardware (perhaps slightly more powerful than the N900, but it won't be a significant difference), and because it'll be targeted at the mainstream (where additional costs aren't welcome). The least likely possibility is that the future devices might have capacitive screens (which lacks precision, thus a high-res screen won't be necessary).


Thanks for the info. Pardon my ignorance, but what does omap4 bring in this respect?


However, there are some (although slim) chances of a hardcore OMAP4/Maemo 7 tablet with not only increased screen resolution and lack of phone capabilities, but also (hopefully) bigger screen as well. The existance of such a device by then (about 2011) wouldn't be well-timed, as it'd be too late for a N8x0 successor, and the lack of phone capabilities would limit it to a certain niche.

I would *love* this. :)

[c0rt3x]

Thanks for the info. Pardon my ignorance, but what does omap4 bring in this respect?

CPU: ARM Cortex A9 MPCore (with slightly higher clock frequencies than the A8 counterpart, due 45 nm process) instead of ARM Cortex A8 Single-core (65 nm process)

GPU: PowerVR SGX 540 (1000M pix/s, 20-35 MPolys/s), up from PowerVR SGX 530 (14 MPolys/s)

Obviously the amount of RAM will be increased as well within the course of 2 years. However, don't except this before 2011, just in time for Maemo 7.

Since Maemo 6 is targeted as a "mainstream OS", then devices equipped with this incarnation might actually have the same (more or less) hardware as the Maemo 5 equipped N900, to keep further compatibility.

I'd say it's pretty safe to get a N900 now for 2 years of usage, since I don't think we'll see much innovations until 2011. There might be a slightly enhanced device "a la N810 WiMax edition", but nothing more than that. At least that's my guess.

[josx]

on my laptop I use

xrandr --output LVDS1 -mode 1280x800 --scale 1.5x1.5

to rescale my 1280x800 screen to 1.5 times the native
resolution. Pixels then get inerpolated. Letters etc get to
be a bit more blurry than usual, but it works fine. I always
use it. Don't know if this works on the n900 (but let me know
if it does). Note that you have to replace LVDS1 with the
name of your display (run xrandr and see output) and you
have to use 800x480..

josx