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
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.
Opensource applications can be recompiled for the new API, after all.
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.
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
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...
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.
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
Originally Posted by
My best hope for my niche "handheld laptop" fetish is for some sort of video out.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Still would like 1000x600 screen: more useful in not-fullscreen; desktop apps should fit gracefully.
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.
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.
Well, getting closer to print DPI does make reading ebooks even tastier.
