NX500 | # 611 | 2017-08-29, 13:59 | Report

I see. I didn't know that.

I wonder, how much more/less energy a 5.5" 4K display/device @1080/360p, consumes compared to a native 5.5" 1080/360p display/device.

If there is no noticeable difference, then the screen size is the factor that kills battery life. Resolution is "irrelevant" then.
Maybe, the GPU's simply can't clock slower and consume less energy, even if you go further down with the resolution.

---

Last edited by NX500; 2017-08-29 at 15:53.

pichlo | # 612 | 2017-08-29, 20:11 | Report

Regarding the screen resolution and pixel density...

My last long-term phone before my N900 was Treo 600. (I say long-term because I tried about three different phones that I did not like before I found the N900, none of them for longer than a few months.)

Treo 600 has a whopping 160x160 pixels, 2.5" square screen. And it was ABSOLUTELY BLOODY FANTASTIC! I cannot find the official spec but by my calculations, it works out at 90 pixels per inch. Yes, the pixels were clearly visible. No, you probably could not watch a video on it but it did not matter since the CPU was not up to the task anyway.

But the text was so fantastically readable! I only came to fully appreciate how good a low-res screen is when I switched to the N900 and suddenly I could not read my SMSes without modifying the style sheet and doubling the font size.

Which is to say, juiceme is absolutely right. A higher screen resolution does not have to mean smaller text and controls but it usually does. The temptation is too strong: we have all these pixels, it would be a shame not to use them. In the most crucial places that I use daily, such as SMS, where I have no alternative but to use the stock app that came with the device.

I have yet to see a counter argument. If anything, Jolla has made the text even less readable, with an even smaller font and an unfortunate choice of colours, only proving my point.

There is absolutely no reason for the pixel war other than to fool the gullible. If you can see a difference between 300 and 450 DPI then you must be a superman. The flip side, the tendency to use the same 12 pt font at a higher DPI, resulting in an unusable device, is just not worth it.

Kabouik | # 613 | 2017-08-29, 23:10 | Report

These points are definitely subjective and depend on users' habits or even eyesight. I would never increase the font size in Sailfish Messages app. Even if it was easy (which it is, by the way, Sailfish comes with three font sizes configurable in Settings and applied system wide). I do understand that some would, but I would not, so I don't think downgrading the resolution from hardware would be satisfactory to everyone and should be the norm. Better to offer users capabilities that they can leave or take.

JulmaHerra | # 614 | 2017-08-30, 05:51 | Report

This is one of those "back in days they made it better!"-things...

You can make screen with lower resolution readable if you set the font correctly for that screen. However, it will limit how much you can fit into that screen in a way that it still remains readable (not to mention pleasant to read) and this is where higher resolution screens usually work better. It's the same thing with projectors, low resolution image is usually mushier to read even from the distance you can't really notice individual pixels and throwing in a full HD projector increases readability especially on smaller items.

Even Master himself is for higher resolution...

pichlo | # 615 | 2017-08-30, 07:21 | Report

In a way, they did. Because they had to. They did not have octacores and 16GB RAM so they had to optimize. Jolla with 1GB struggles to cope with keeping more than 3 apps open, something that N900 does effortlessly with a quarter of that.

In terms of screen resolution, I appreciate that my post was a bit long, but please try to understand that I am not against a high resolution per se, only against poor optimization. Unfortunately, as is the case with pretty much everything in life, more resources are often interpreted as no need to optimize.

But that is exactly the point! Howe much you can comfortably fit into the screen is not a function of the screen resolution, but the screen size. If you cram more things onto the same 4" screen only because the higher resolution allows you to, you will end up with an unusable interface.

Now turn it around. If you cannot squeeze more things into the screen despite having a higher resolution, then what is the point of the higher resolution?

Actually, what I would advocate is a constant pixel density, independent of the screen size.

endsormeans | # 616 | 2017-08-30, 07:39 | Report

Agreed.

What we are seeing is that ...
since the always climbing increase in creation and production of devices with higher and higher and greater and greater maximums ..
The natural given is that there is a wastefulness ...
why optimize anything when cpu , ram, etc are always getting bigger and better?
forget optimization in fact...
do the the reverse in fact...
Bog the systems down as much as possible...
and that spurs faster obsolescence and keeps pace with the latest innovation, the latest increases in ability and the latest devices out.

Flat out..
we will not see honest and truly serious and innovative use and optimization of any device until they begin to hit "the Wall" of what is attainable...
THEN watch how fast the modern devices shuck the useless crap that bog them down.
it has happened before.. when tech has slowed in it's innovative output..
and it will happen again..

right now we are just going through a phase no different than many other areas...
the "Bigger is Better" philo always runs its cyclic course...
and then sanity kicks back in again...

JulmaHerra | # 617 | 2017-08-30, 07:55 | Report

...and that also limited features (both functional and security ones).

Of course it is. As I mentioned previously, lower optimization is logical result from faster release cycle. If you are going to optimize in a way that squeezes everything out from limited set of resources (kind of what was done with Symbian), it will take resources (people, time, money) and one has to decide what's the best way to implement features X, Y and Z. Are you going to a) add in resources (money, people), b) add time/push back development of other features/optimizations or c) take advantage of additional processing power etc of the device. At the same time you have to take into consideration the competition which is pushing out new features at very quick pace. This was one thing that effectively killed Nokia mobile phones. Android back in those days was far from being optimized.

Point is, if you want to have both ultimate optimization AND the features to match competition, you will need considerable amount of money and people to do it. Otherwise you are screwed in no time. Jolla has been lamented about poor optimization (which is in many ways true of course), at the same time they have been lamented about lack of features X, Y, Z.... considering their resources those are conflicting demands, you cannot have both highly optimized code AND feature sets WITHOUT considerable financial and human resources OR time to implement it all. Sorry, it's just not doable.

I'd say it's combination of both screen size AND screen resolution, as smaller objects on higher resolution screens are more clear and pleasant to look than on lower resolution screen at the same size (in general, not talking about moving from something like Full HD to 4k on 5" display).

pichlo | # 618 | 2017-08-30, 08:47 | Report

Skimping on features or security due to limited resources is not "optimize" but "compromise".
What I mean is real optimization - the same features using less resources.

What we see instead is adding extra features that no one has asked for because the resources allow it. For example, the faded background in many stock Jolla applications (Email, Messages, Phone, People...). They add no value and more often than not, get in the way of usability. You may call them "features", I call them "bloat". You say, optimization costs money. I say that may be so, but so does bloat.

Agreed. But even you concede that there is a limit beyond which the usefulness is questionable. For me, the limit is at the point where you can no longer see the individual pixels. Even the N900 or Jolla screens are already at that point.

JulmaHerra | # 619 | 2017-08-30, 09:09 | Report

There is a limit how far you can get with optimizing until you reach the point where implementing feature X with those limited resources becomes too heavy for HW to cope with (either it doesn't work, is unstable or it's so slow that nobody wants to use it any longer) if you don't run out of (other peoples) money before that. On the other hand, it's the same thing with screens and resolution - there is point where adding pixels won't do much good any longer. On features and optimization, in real life one has to choose the point where optimization is "good enough" instead of "optimal" because there usually are nobody to pay the price for "optimal".

I was going to say that IMO everyone should be just fine using only vi...

Most of time new features are something nobody asked for because they didn't have an idea such thing could or should exists. Same goes for all new products - they create the demand. I won't comment that much on mostly subjective things like faded backgrounds as those are more related to UX which needs to be more or less consistent and pleasing to the eye. Usually everyone has their own opinion about those.

I don't consider Jolla (the original one) screen to be on that point as I find it much more pleasant to use retina display. It doesn't mush smaller objects as much. But yes, there is limit in EVERYTHING beyond which usefulness/rationality can be questioned - optimization level included.

juiceme | # 620 | 2017-08-30, 10:32 | Report

The problem with the original Jolla sbj1 display is the dimness of it, not enough lux and contrast.
Resolutionwise it is pretty much optimal.

Regarding the idea presented before that a modern (too-)high-resolution display could be used by cutting down the resolution by for example using 4x4 groups of pixels; I am not totally confident that it will cut down power consumption as much as can be hoped;
You will still need a high-end display driver for it I guess, can you even interface it to a more energy-efficient chipset?