Recommended Posts

Seems like an underwhelming device. Has MSFT really restricted OEMs to 480x800 resolution? In thoday's market of hi-def screens isn't that suicide? I can't find any actual cite for that. I hope at least one of the Nokia phones will feature 720p resolution.

There's this link from Microsoft

Add to that there's not support for any resolutions other than 800 x 480 in the developers tools, and Microsoft give us developers many months lead-time in getting access to these things before they go public. If Nokia decided to put out a 720p phone next month, I'd guess a large majority of the apps and certainly the games will be broken in some way.

The screen looks great with it's resolution thanks to it's great font smoothing - so you don't tend to notice that it's got a low DPI. My only personal complaint is that it just makes everything a bit too big for my personal tastes - a higher resolution would have allowed for more on screen and still have kept the same great keyboard size - but alas we're all restricted to 800 x 480.

The next major version of Windows Phone has a lot of it's shoulders, what with adding support for more screen resolution and getting us out there with dual core processors. It's a shame Windows Phone probably won't ever be at the front of the pack specs wise for a few years, though many here would argue it doesn't need to be. (Though it would be very nice)

I definitely agree that a higher available screen resolution would be nice..

However, there's really no need for dual core cpus at the moment.

As for why the phone costs as much as it does.. most of the expensive components are the same.. the chips are the cheapest parts.. it's the screen, the on-board nand and other parts that don't change that are much more expensive per unit than the SoC powering the device.

I'm not saying HTC wouldn't do well to sell it cheaper.. but manufacturing cost wise I can't imagine that this costs them much less than one of their other new phones..

It would be interesting for someone to do a large sample "blind test" on different screens resolutions.

In my professional experience of printing / graphic design etc. a screen resolution of 200dpi (HTC Titan) is plenty and very few people would notice the difference if it was increased. Demanding a higher resolution for the sake of just having a better spec is nonsense (it is like demanding a higher MP camera, when in fact aperture, lens, iso, sensor size etc. have much bigger bearing on picture quality).

For screens, better quality, colour, contrast etc. would all make a noticeable difference (but are harder to put on a spec sheet) and compare.

People said same thing about Symbian.

I won't buy it because its got 480 MHz or 600 MHz processor.

e.t.c.

The point is why do you need, say, Radeon 6950 HD when Radeon 6750 is playing your desired game at highest settings, at highest resolution at 120 FPS?

Sure, when you play with 6950 you'll get 160 FPS but its gonna cost you more electricity bill.

Similarly, when you put a 1.5 GHz dual-core CPU and run it with WP7, you are gonna end up charging your phone every 5 hours, say. Because the excess of CPU power is getting into trash.

But when you've got a 1 GHz CPU, that does exactly the same what 1.5 GHz dual-core CPU does, then you are gonna have to charge the phone every 8 hours, say.

See the difference

I think you are missing the point. A netbook runs just fine with it's Windows 7 OS. It is very efficient for power, and browses the web just fine. Now, lets say there was a power hungry open-source similar laptop OS out there. You think, that the netbook with it's 1.2ghz Atom processor and integrated graphics that does just fine running it OS and apps, should be the SAME PRICE as the quad core dedicated GPU power hungry Open-Source running OS? No, Nobody thinks that. If they were, they would never buy the Netbook, and that is the point.

This topic is now closed to further replies.