Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

What the heck?! No 104" quad-hd screen?! I'm soooooo disappointed!

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

I am not really disappointed with the 5mpx. It was really a personal disappointment. Because i thought i would replace both my n958gb and n810 for the n900. I assumed by that time nokia would put in a better camera than that is on the n958gb. But i can take the 5mpx also.

My real disappointment was with the ram..... i just could not understand why nokia would give us the same ram which they actually gave almost 3 years ago.
But now i understand that it is not an issue.

So i am perfectly happy. Thanks for the fm transmitter and the accelerometer. I hope the fm transmitter is better than the one in n78.

My last and final question is the touch screen... is it capacitative or resistive?

Thanks

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

At first, I wanted a higher-resolution screen. 800x480 seems so small.

I've since realized that we're pretty much at the highest resolution we're going to get without making the device unwieldy. If the face of the device was all screen with no bezel (and then where would the web camera go?), then perhaps we could get a bit higher numbers in the HxV department...

I've also realized that what I want the bigger screen for is not what Nokia is building the device to do; I want a hand-held laptop, and that's just a contradiction in terms for most people. I want to be able to run desktop applications on this device, and the 480V resolution is often frustratingly slender for desktop apps like word processors or spreadsheets. But I'm a slender minority here; I'm betting that Nokia's concentrating their limited man-hours on making a device that does hand-held, carry-around tasks well.

My best hope for my niche "handheld laptop" fetish is for some sort of video out.

The other thing that concerns me is the API break. I don't understand why that's happening. Can't they incorporate the legacy API and extend it with new features? Anyway, not much I can do in any case.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

API breaks happen for a lot of reasons, and "API break" can actually mean a lot of different things. Let's wait until the API's are actually frozen and we have some concrete info on what'll be breaking, where it'll be breaking and why before we pass judgement.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

I doubt it will be capacitive TS because that would mean a completely finger driven interface. As the N97 and 5800 have shown Nokia has interest in stylii for the asian language markets.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

It's resistive (this point has been mentioned a couple times before from other Nokia personnel). Multitouch is a ways away. Which is just as well, because capacitive isn't going to be much fun at 225dpi.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Clearly some of these specs may be tweaked. I for one am glad to see that Nokia is paying attention to product cost. Do we really want to see the next tablet with an $800 or greater price tag.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

any idea if the rx-51 will have the powerVR drivers so we can have 3d stuff this time?

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Yes, this was announced at the Summit months ago. . . .

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Maemo is not Windows. And one of the reasons why Windows got so damn fat was because it ships legacy API to maintain backwards-compatibility all the way down to Windows 95 or even older.
Anyway, since most of the API is opensource and not under control of Nokia, they can't do much about breakage. To avoid API break you'd have to stick with old libraries. Nobody really wants that.
Opensource applications can be recompiled for the new API, after all. The difficulty is with closed-source stuff where the producer lost interest in maintaining.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Are you talking about the N800 camera? I even forgot about it, I just noticed it yesterday: "WTF is that circle? Ah, yes, the camera..." :mad:

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Agreed. I wouldn't mind, say, 1000x600 (it would make the browser more usable in non-fullscreen mode for example) but the main issue I have is the way the Chinook/Diablo UI is wasting all those pixels (examples: application menu, RSS & speed contact applets, etc) in order to be "finger friendly". I still have pretty good eyesight and prefer using the stylus (much higher accuracy, keeps the screen clean) so for me this was a serious regression compared to previous versions.

Even if the RX51 had a higher resolution display, the same proportion of screen real estate would be wasted so it wouldn't make much difference.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

If it's a matter of recompiling, it's just an ABI break, not an API one. If the API has changed, you first have to adapt the sources to the new one (and, if you want, keep the older one(s) with ifdefs), otherwise it woulnd't even compile, or if it compiles it wouldn't work.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

What happens when the desktop apps are shown I don't know (they may link into the desktop clutter/OpenGL goodness, may have closed source uis, and indeed may use the hi-def camera and always on connection).

However judging from past experience, even if the apps are OpenGL/clutter enabled and the UIs are not open source, the backends usually are, so we can write our own UIs to fit with whatever desktop we're currently using on the OMAP2 devices.

Then again, they may also come with Diablo front-ends from their initial testing period on the OMAP2 devices, who knows? But it is pretty exciting, lots of hacking to be done :)

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Well, higher-res is doable in the same size; the Fujitsu U820 has 1280x800 in 5.6", which is 270 PPI, where we're at 225 IIRC. Maybe the 1024x600 I was/am hoping for (about 290 PPI) is a little optimistic, but it's quite possible.
A good point, and, unsurprisingly, the U820 is precisely that, a handheld laptop. (And starts at $1000!) Maybe the additional benefit from an uber-highres isn't worth the added cost in a consumer device; after all, even very high-end phones are barely now catching up to the 770, so there must not be much demand.

Second that! Indeed, my primary laptop (tx2000) just gave up the ghost this past week, and I've been using my Eee instead of N800 to replace it until I can fix it. It was a close call as it was, but the only real advantage the Eee had was VGA output. Fortunately, the RX-51 looks set to take care of that, with at least TV-out.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Which still shouldn't be a big problem with actively maintained apps.
And the move to a clutter-based UI will not erase GTK from maemo. So it wouldn't require porting the UI to another toolkit.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Still would like 1000x600 screen: more useful in not-fullscreen; desktop apps should fit gracefully.

About 5Mpx camera: it is even too big. Quality from N9x isn't breathtaking. To reduce Bayer effects you have to resize 50% getting 1.25Mpx in effect. Would preffer *real* 3Mpx any day.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

As for the memory size it looks like having two DDR chips (of different sizes) is possible with OMAP 34xx so there are definitely more options. Even more than 256MB can be done. For details see chapter "11.2.6.5 Understanding SDRAM Subsystem Address Spaces" of OMAP34xx Wireless Technical Reference Manual listed here

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

On a touch screen the critical value is the physical size of the screen. If a screen is n centimeters wide, I don't really think the pixel resolution makes much a difference at all. A button needs to be a certain width in order to hit it. Even though you could draw a desktop UI with increased resolution, you couldn't really use it.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Well, getting closer to print DPI does make reading ebooks even tastier. ;)

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

on the digital camera thing, its become a marketing issue.

iirc, a company tried to move away from reporting megapixels, and had their sales drop like a rock.

megapixels have become what hertz is to a cpu, a measuring stick for those that want to think they are in the know when buying of the shelf goods at some local store.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

It always sickens/saddens me that advertising has to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

But then, I am actually ridiculed by some friends and family for having a large (ie, writer's) vocabulary. :rolleyes:

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

I'm not following the progression here. Are the buttons mapped to F6-F10 instead of F4-F8 because there are two additional buttons for the camera? So everything is the same except for the additional buttons...

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

For touching buttons that's true, but when browsing a web page reduced to fit on a small screen every bit of extra resolution helps readability.

Roger.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Obviously there's a tradeoff, ie sweetspot, and I think the current resolution is pretty much it.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

While MP is marketing blurb (CCD is far more important) the quality of cameras recent (0-2 years) phones Nokia phones in N-Series has been remarkably high, and steadily gotten better as well. For many people and purposes its good enough. Some even include Xenon flash. Likewise, zoom only matters on the lens (optical zoom).

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

This is a nice addition as well. I'm assuming ASR (auto screen rotation) as well as image stabilization for the cam.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Image stabilisation might not be there realistically, depends on what the accelerometer is setup to detect (should be in the spec sheet) and I would imagine that autofocus would be provided by the autofocus/zoom/stabilisation/feather waving driver.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

No thank you. I use OpenOffice on the tablet and the text (at our 225 dpi) on the dropdown menus is so tiny that you need a very steady hand to tap the correct item on the menu. I can't imagine pushing that resolution even higher! We would need Fresnel lenses as in Brazil (or maybe something like a Nanoscope) in order to use desktop apps.

I second that. A big 3Mpx CCD would be great.

Do you also find yourself mocked, derided, jeered-at, sneered-at, taunted and scorned? Yeah, me too.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

My assumption comes from the implementation in the N-series 5MP phones. The N95 has an accelerometer that was originally only used for image stabilization. It wasn't until later that Nokia opened this up and included ASR in the N95 series phones and also allow developers access to it to develop their own apps (RotateMe, ShutUp, Lightsaber, etc.) And, no, I'm not looking for a lightsaber app for my new tablet. ;) I'm basing my opinion on what I've seen Nokia do in the past with accelerometer. I'm not a code guy so I haven't dug into the alpha release to see what exact accel options there are but maybe others can speak to this? Or maybe you already did? :)

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Speak for yourself. Lightsaber app please!!

vvvrrrm! zzzzmmm! swish! swish!

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

If nothing else, Maemo is not Symbian. I don't know what Nokia is planning on using it for in their software, but rest assured that the values will be available to use however you like.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

What a missed opportunity for:

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Installed on my N95-4, used once. *shrug* Novelty wore off that quickly. :)

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

A jedi you will never be.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

I seem to remember there was some talk that the screen may be multitouch capable, but no multitouch in Fremantle... Of course i may be wrong too :D Anyway, there is multitouch X server already, just no final release of it :)

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Totally agree that Maemo is not Symbian but that doesn't mean that we can't glean some idea of application based on previous implementation.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

I think I'm another one of those users whose usage patterns are at odds with there the Nokia sees the future of the IT. Can't really blame them or say that I'm surprised.

I love the simplicity of the N800. I don't really want a built-in keyboard, GPS, camera, or even HSPA. Especially when I can so easily tether something far superior to whatever they can squeeze into it.

Having all these extra bells and whistles certainly doesn't make it a bad device, but I'm worried that they're going to push the price far above what I'm willing to pay for improved core functionality.

I know it's unreasonable to expect them to release two devices, corresponding roughly to what the N800 and N810 WIMAX are to each other, but I'm going to keep my fingers crossed nevertheless.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

No, camera buttons have extra driver and actually now it looks like it is only one button with two functions - shutter and focus. I don't know why the Fx mapping changed, IIRC F4,F5 are home/swap key and menu key. Either we no longer have those and have two additional ones or there is other reason. At least KEY_F10 is both in keypad mapping and also sent as camera focus button event. Shutter is sent as KEY_CAMERA (whetever code it is). And BTW there are no longer separate keys for dpad center and enter so maybe dpad may change into regular arrow keys or something. I think one N810 review did not understand why 'keyboard arrow keys' were on the left (unlike on PC keyboard) so maybe they 'corrected' this and we only have arrow keys?

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Oh no, my answer was non-authoritative, mainly as I'd assumed anti-shake would require a pretty sensitive accelerometer and lots of processing power. I may well be wrong though, and will be quite happy to be :)