Related
Hi all,
Now that we have all got our XDA's does any one know if it would be possible to change the Screen in the XDA to a 640x480 screen so that we can use the High resolutions in the new version of Windows Mobile edition?
I have seen some screen shots of the diference and its a HUGE difference... I would love to have a 640x480 screen now after seeing what the device could look like.
I suppose that the device can pump out 800x600 for Output but am not sure if it can pump 640x480 directly to the screen? do you think they will be an upgrade option if people would like to have there screen's updated on there XDA2's?
well of cause you would have to replace the whole screen
not sure if the the xda2 is popular enough for them to consider ofering something like that
I think they will, but it'll be called XDA III
Would it not be as easy as getting a new 640x480 screen and connecting it up? Provided we can find the right size and with the correct connector of course? Is there any reasion that our XDA II will not beable to push out 640x480 reso direct to the screen?
I'm not very technical when it comes to the workings of the XDA as I do not know the hardware it has inside, and am not game enough to start poking around in it just yet...
Well I do hope for all of ours sake that we will have an option or a parth later on for the new reso it does look sooooooo much better and is super CRISP...
No, it would be possible (Se NYDITOT Virtual Display) but you can´t see ****, because the screen only has 320x240 pixels.
maybe the cable to the screen would have a different wireing
and maybe the lcd control chip on the "motherboard" would also
have to be changed
different res's on intergrated devices are never as std. as external monitors on pc's
But you can change the resolution, the problem is neither the chip but the screen. It can only display 320x240 pixels, because is has no more!
skenliv yes but he's asking if they would make an upgrade where he gets a whole new screen for his device which does support 640_480
of cause that still leave the issue with the posible connection difference
and the chip may not be able to control a bigger res and maybe one would even have to change the touchscreen along with the lcd if it's limited to a lower res aswell
anyway i'm pretty sure it would be a very expensive upgrade
and it would prob be cheaper to just buy a xda3
But it is able to handle a higher resolution, that´s what im trying to say
Although the display can show 640, but you can´t see anything because it´s so damn small on a 320x240 pixel screen.
And yes, it would probably be very very expensive to change the whole screen.
how much bigger is the e80X 's screen then xda2's ?
The E800 is 4 Inch. The XDA II is 3 Inch. So it´s quite big.
I think the amount of video ram is also a factor in the available resolution, so even if you could get 800x600 it would probably only be in 256 or 16 colours.
Maybe I wil be too sad but,the Himalaya has internal GPU that is confirmed for ATI Imageon 3200 series.
Following there are the spec:
Display Support
4/8 bit monochrome
12/15/16/18 bit color STN
12/15/16/18 bit TFT
Maximum resolution 320x480 at a color depth of 16-bpp
Partial display refresh
2 HW cursors, 1 HW icon/overlay
Frame modulation
Panel rotation (90°, 180°, 270°)
Please note the maximum resolution supported!
It NEVER support more than 320x480..so never 640x480!
You must change all the matherboard of your ppc for that and also the screen,it isn't factible.
Regards,Ser
Thanks for the replys guys although I am even more confused now, if the ATI Imageon 3200 series does not put our more then 320x480, how does the XDAII output 640x480 and 800x600 output? is this a totaly diferent card/chipset that does this work? If so things might be starting to make a little sence although I don't see why they would not use 1 chipset that could do both... so still a little confusing on the logic side of things...
Cheers...
yes,I see your confusion!
XDA2 can't output 640x480 and can't 800x600.
You probably refer to Nyditot Virtual Display,a program that force "via software" to use virtual resolutions like 640x480-800x600 and up..but more things are unreadable!
or could he be talking about displaying on an external monitor using the backpack?
No.. I think he's talking about the external output on the backpack...
fudgebottom said:
Hi all,
Now that we have all got our XDA's does any one know if it would be possible to change the Screen in the XDA to a 640x480 screen so that we can use the High resolutions in the new version of Windows Mobile edition?
I have seen some screen shots of the diference and its a HUGE difference... I would love to have a 640x480 screen now after seeing what the device could look like.
I suppose that the device can pump out 800x600 for Output but am not sure if it can pump 640x480 directly to the screen? do you think they will be an upgrade option if people would like to have there screen's updated on there XDA2's?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
fudgebottom said:
Hi all,
Now that we have all got our XDA's does any one know if it would be possible to change the Screen in the XDA to a 640x480 screen so that we can use the High resolutions in the new version of Windows Mobile edition?
I have seen some screen shots of the diference and its a HUGE difference... I would love to have a 640x480 screen now after seeing what the device could look like.
I suppose that the device can pump out 800x600 for Output but am not sure if it can pump 640x480 directly to the screen? do you think they will be an upgrade option if people would like to have there screen's updated on there XDA2's?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi fudgebottom
as your friends said, the display of your pocket pc is designed for 320x240. but i found a software called Virtual Display, you can resize your screen for 640x480 and 800x600 and you can rotate the screen, ...
the site is: http://www.nyditot.com/NVDPage.asp
hope it can help
i wouldnt use that s/w on ur xda2 as it means a hard reset lol been there and done that :|
works fine on xda1 using ppc2003
I'll make this short and sweet since I'm @work and need to well, work...
I was growing tired of the burden of having the Athena with me all the time so I went down to at&t and got a Tilt... Nice phone (except for video issues which will be fixed hopefully) but I simply could not get used to a small screen again, especially for finger typing. Athena's big screen really reduces the need to use a stylus. In fact, I only use it for actually writing notes on the screen.
So, I thought, maybe 2 devices again? I could go to the Moto Q9 Global and the HP iPAQ 210/211 (release iminent if not out already...) But, the lack of wi-fi on the Moto was a deal-breaker for me since I sometimes spend 2 or 3 days at a time in a location with wi-fi only. I had the Q for a week and returned it.
I simply could not adapt to either device; I have adapted to the Athena. It's been covered before how this is not a proper phone and I agree but with my Jabra BT8010 and LG Style-I (I have and use both) it works well enough for me. I'm more of a data user than a talker.
Of course, your mileage may vary...
Yes, it is hard to leave the Athena especially when you are a custom to the screen and other aspects we take for granted. I tried the Tilt as well, and it was no match. In the end, I am still perfectly happy with the Athena until another big screen slimmer device with more capabilities.
Almost same here.
- Had a Universal -> happy;
- Universal dead, replaced with Hermes by operator -> *very* unhappy;
- Hermes eBayed, Athena bought -> happy.
Can't understand how people now how people can browse the web, play video and stuff on smallish QVGA screens.
lpsi2000 said:
Yes, it is hard to leave the Athena especially when you are a custom to the screen and other aspects we take for granted. I tried the Tilt as well, and it was no match. In the end, I am still perfectly happy with the Athena until another big screen slimmer device with more capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
More capabilities - like being able to fly??
I agree with you and HeartofDarkness - the screen (and built-in GPS) make it invaluable. Now if only they would produce a version that didn't have the microdrive but just had a large solid state drive......
Came from an atom. Did all you mentioned. Damaged my eyes in the process. Fortunately damage was temporary. I'm very happy with my athena. Heavy and big compared to the atom but for now, it works for me and I love it. Until a better PPC comes out, I don't think I will consider replacing it.
Things I would look for in a new device:
thinner but wider display to improve web browsing and enable a 'narrower' device. The only REAL thing I miss about the Athena is the big screen, but with a little design alteration the size could be more-or-less maintained without making the device as bulky as at present.
Slimmer profile, rounded at the edges and no keyboard. I think the look of the device is spoiled by the hardware keyboard and I much preferred to leave it at home and use Fingertouch.
Ability to use as a handset like the Iphone for when needed (bt works but some people don't like using bluetooth/wired headsets all of the time)
Full ATI chip support.
Vueflo improvements such as auto-rotation
FlashLite 3.0 to enable full embedded flash site support!
This is what i'll be looking for. I'm sure if HTC don't release a device like this someone will.
leoni1980 said:
Things I would look for in a new device:
thinner but wider display to improve web browsing and enable a 'narrower' device. The only REAL thing I miss about the Athena is the big screen, but with a little design alteration the size could be more-or-less maintained without making the device as bulky as at present.
Slimmer profile, rounded at the edges and no keyboard. I think the look of the device is spoiled by the hardware keyboard and I much preferred to leave it at home and use Fingertouch.
Ability to use as a handset like the Iphone for when needed (bt works but some people don't like using bluetooth/wired headsets all of the time)
Full ATI chip support.
Vueflo improvements such as auto-rotation
FlashLite 3.0 to enable full embedded flash site support!
This is what i'll be looking for. I'm sure if HTC don't release a device like this someone will.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Amen to all these.
Would just add what it should still be on winCE platform for the sake of software availability.
Also, camera taking indoor could improve.
Don't forget to replace microdrive with an SSD.
If possible, I prefer regular size SDHC. It's capacity seems to be always ahead of minisdhc and microsdhc.
But for now, Athena is still the only option meeting my needs most closely.
Despite what the cosmic feline has spewed all over xda (I hope he is banned indefinitely), I still consider the Athena a single-device solution since anything as easy to carry as a BT headset or Style-i is not burdensome as separate phone and PDA. I did the 2-device thing awhile back with an iPAQ 4705 and Nokia 6230b and I found myself without the PDA on too many occasions. Future onverged devices will mean fewer compromises than we have to make now but for now the Athena is as good as it gets and that's good enough for me. And as good as it gets has only gotten better with the AP team and xda input and development.
calm down now. let's be nice please, each to their own and all that......i use two devices at the moment as it suits my needs: am i an idiot?
the athena might get even better within a few days/weeks. im seeing if it could be a first device with something.... cant reveal what yet but oh well we'll see if it will be possible.
leoni1980 said:
Things I would look for in a new device:
thinner but wider display to improve web browsing and enable a 'narrower' device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Leoni,
I've given more thought to the issue of aspect ratio.
I think that we should not go for a narrower screen. Narrower screen is suitable for portrait use. Also, most applications will not be able to use it properly. Think about the problems square screens are having. Also, think about your wide screen television playing most videos, which requires the image to be flattened in order to cover the entire screen, or having to leave the two sides margin unused.
I think the aspect ratio should just stick to the standard ones because of this.
Am I making sense?
eaglesteve said:
Leoni,
I've given more thought to the issue of aspect ratio.
I think that we should not go for a narrower screen. Narrower screen is suitable for portrait use. Also, most applications will not be able to use it properly. Think about the problems square screens are having. Also, think about your wide screen television playing most videos, which requires the image to be flattened in order to cover the entire screen, or having to leave the two sides margin unused.
I think the aspect ratio should just stick to the standard ones because of this.
Am I making sense?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Narrower screen will suit movie playback better as it is more in fitting with the widescreen standards, whereas the Athena's aspect ration necessitates more cropping to fill the screen as it is quite square. 800*480 is becoming more common on pocket pc's and moble devices so I don't think compatibility will be any more of a problem than it is with VGA. Also web browsing will be significantly improved as there will only be a minimal need for horizontal scrolling. This in turn will make remote desktop and things such as Pocket Excel, Pocket Word and any other graphical/chart app look a lot better.
What do you think?
leoni1980 said:
Narrower screen will suit movie playback better as it is more in fitting with the widescreen standards, whereas the Athena's aspect ration necessitates more cropping to fill the screen as it is quite square. 800*480 is becoming more common on pocket pc's and moble devices so I don't think compatibility will be any more of a problem than it is with VGA. Also web browsing will be significantly improved as there will only be a minimal need for horizontal scrolling. This in turn will make remote desktop and things such as Pocket Excel, Pocket Word and any other graphical/chart app look a lot better.
What do you think?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would be like what you see on television. Basically the extra space would not be used for many years until all movies are made in the new format. It would only happen if there is widespread adoption of wide screen TV.
Similarly, unless all PDA moves in the same direction, software vendor is not going to start coding their applications for wide screen just for a small market.
A long and narrow screen will also be unsuitable for portrait use.
I think with the 96 dpi, ability to see is not an issue with Athena's size and aspect ratio. With excel, one cannot completely eliminate need for horizontal scrolling. A narrower screen would give less visibility height wise, so I'm not sure that is better or not. But the key issue, as I mentioned, is the availability of software, which is not up to us, or the hardware vendor. To go wide and short screen is going against the de facto standard in the PDA industry, and would have to overcome too much problems to be worth it.
eaglesteve said:
It would be like what you see on television. Basically the extra space would not be used for many years until all movies are made in the new format. It would only happen if there is widespread adoption of wide screen TV.
Similarly, unless all PDA moves in the same direction, software vendor is not going to start coding their applications for wide screen just for a small market.
A long and narrow screen will also be unsuitable for portrait use.
I think with the 96 dpi, ability to see is not an issue with Athena's size and aspect ratio. With excel, one cannot completely eliminate need for horizontal scrolling. A narrower screen would give less visibility height wise, so I'm not sure that is better or not. But the key issue, as I mentioned, is the availability of software, which is not up to us, or the hardware vendor. To go wide and short screen is going against the de facto standard in the PDA industry, and would have to overcome too much problems to be worth it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are already windows mobile devices with 800 by 480 screens. It would be interesting to see if there are any compatibiity issues versus standard VGA, however I doubt there are. The widescreen ratio here in britain is standard in all broadcasts of the last 3 years or so and is certainly standard in Movies, meaning that for movie and tv applications at least some of the Athena's screen height is wasted unless cropping the image. The 800 by 480 ratio is also more in keeping with the typical ratio of photography. Portrait orientation is not really an issue since the .480 resolution is the same as it would be on the Athena, though marginally scalled down in size. Overall there will be an improvement in screen real-estate and a more pocket-able device would be possible
leoni1980 said:
There are already windows mobile devices with 800 by 480 screens. It would be interesting to see if there are any compatibiity issues versus standard VGA, however I doubt there are. The widescreen ratio here in britain is standard in all broadcasts of the last 3 years or so and is certainly standard in Movies, meaning that for movie and tv applications at least some of the Athena's screen height is wasted unless cropping the image. The 800 by 480 ratio is also more in keeping with the typical ratio of photography. Portrait orientation is not really an issue since the .480 resolution is the same as it would be on the Athena, though marginally scalled down in size. Overall there will be an improvement in screen real-estate and a more pocket-able device would be possible
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not the expert on this area. I just know the square screen devices had problem running many normal software, and its just my educated guess, not based on any hard research, that it might encounter similar issues in another aspect ratio.
Someone with more knowledge might want to comment on this, as I feel that I'm begining to comment based on speculations now. I'd rather not do that.
Other than this concern, I think 800x480 would be great.
Cheers.
Its a matter of choosing to stay with the past, or go with the future. In the past the 4:3 ratio was most common both for TV and computer monitor formats. Now with HD getting ready to become mainstream in many countries, the 16:9 ratio is becoming the new TV standard. Computer monitors are also quickly taking on that ratio with all the "widescreen" versions now on the market. I'm betting within 2 years 16:9 will be the definitive standard for TV and computers, especially since 4:3 content on a 16:9 screen is more useable than the reverse (watching a widescreen movie on a 4:3 screen sucks).
Now resolution is another matter, and some seem to be getting that mixed up with the physical dimention ratio. You can squish 800X480 on a 4:3 screen, or a 16:9 screen, you just need elongated pixels. Not that any company would do that, I'm just saying. So after going with 16:9, an appropriate resolution would have to go with it like 960x540.
I think the best form factor for the next version would be a 16:9 screen, which would elongate it somewhat and reduce the height. Not only would this allow for 4:3 and 16:9 content, it would make it easier to hold as a real phone (and then make sure it has a standard private earpiece so it can be used as a phone). By making it a little longer it should be able to be thinned out a little, too, since there would be more internal volume for components. Add vibrate and all the hold-outs will buy it - the ones that love every spec except the fact that its not quite a phone. The mass market won't buy it unless it has vibrate and a private earpiece. Adding the widescreen will appeal to the iphone crowd and many others looking for the next big thing.
Widescreen, a little thinner, a private earpiece and vibrate and HTC will have an instant hit.
techntrek said:
Its a matter of choosing to stay with the past, or go with the future. In the past the 4:3 ratio was most common both for TV and computer monitor formats. Now with HD getting ready to become mainstream in many countries, the 16:9 ratio is becoming the new TV standard. Computer monitors are also quickly taking on that ratio with all the "widescreen" versions now on the market. I'm betting within 2 years 16:9 will be the definitive standard for TV and computers, especially since 4:3 content on a 16:9 screen is more useable than the reverse.
Now resolution is another matter, and some seem to be getting that mixed up with the physical dimention ratio. You can squish 800X480 on a 4:3 screen, or a 16:9 screen, you just need elongated pixels.
I think the best form factor for the next version would be a 16:9 screen, which would elongate it somewhat and thin out the height. Not only would this allow for 4:3 and 16:9 content, it would make it easier to hold as a real phone (and then make sure it has a standard private earpiece so it can be used as a phone). By making it a little longer it should be able to be thinned out a little, too. Add vibrate and all the hold-outs will buy it - the ones that love every spec except the fact that its not quite a phone. The mass market won't buy it unless it has vibrate and a private earpiece. Adding the widescreen will appeal to the iphone crowd and many others looking for the next big thing.
Widescreen, a little thinner, a private earpiece and vibrate and HTC will have an instant hit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, indeed the longer but narrower phone will be easier to hold.
Do you reckon there will be problem running existing applications on 800x480 screen?
I doubt it, although if they go 16:9 the resolution would have to be something like 960x540 or some other similar 16:9 format (I edited my post above to include this). Well-written applications like Word or GPS should already be built to handle any resolution. I know on desktop Windows any resolution change triggers a system event, which apps are supposed to monitor and adapt to. I assume since RealVGA requires a reboot Windows Mobile doesn't support resolution changes on the fly, but it should at least have an API to tell apps what the current resolution is when they first run, and most apps should already be built to adjust accordingly - there are just too many different screen sizes on the market for them not to.
techntrek said:
I doubt it, although if they go 16:9 the resolution would have to be something like 960x540 or some other similar 16:9 format (I edited my post above to include this). Well-written applications like Word or GPS should already be built to handle any resolution. I know on desktop Windows any resolution change triggers a system event, which apps are supposed to monitor and adapt to. I assume since RealVGA requires a reboot Windows Mobile doesn't support resolution changes on the fly, but it should at least have an API to tell apps what the current resolution is when they first run, and most apps should already be built to adjust accordingly - there are just too many different screen sizes on the market for them not to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, they cannot afford to not cater to all the different resolutions and aspect ratios. What I'm worried is what in reality many programs are written by lazy programmers who had not made their applications as smart as the likes of microsoft office. Games, for example. But, I'm hopeful that more and more people would become aware of the need to make their applications aspect ratio as wellas resolution aware.
Anyway, by the time we get our next device, wm7 should be out. Then, many developers might need to go through some adaptation. Who knows, wm7 may allows resolution change without the need to reset?
leoni1980 said:
calm down now. let's be nice please, each to their own and all that......i use two devices at the moment as it suits my needs: am i an idiot?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@me? I am perfectly calm, damnit!!! (just kidding...) Anyone who carries 2 devices is fine with me; to each his or her own, it just didn't work for me. As for spacecat, he was always picking a fight and I grew weary of his drivel cluttering xda. He's entitled to his opinion as well but stepped over the line by attacking others. 'Nuff said.
So I now own both the N1 and the Archos 5 android tablet. Despite their obvious screen size differences, they're both 800x480 screens. Yet the Archos has more real estate over the N1. The main issue is that android on the N1 is scaling everthing up, so we end up with a home screen that doesn't display anything more than what is found on the first gen android 320x480 phones, despite having almost 2/3rds more screen res lengthwise. That's not the case on the Archos, which means icons and text are smaller than on the N1, so they're not taking up as much space as on the N1. See the attached picture to see what I mean. The scale being used on the archos is still very usable and not significantly smaller than what is found on the N1. I think options to adjust icon and/or text sizes would allow much better use of the larger and higer res screens on these new phones, because right now, I don't think we're getting the real benefits of these improvements over the previous generations.
Its a capacitive touch mobile device... making things smaller is really a bad idea as it will hurt usability...
You can try setting to density lower and see how it looks.
Having the same scale in ui of N1 as in Archos would make things very tiny.
Smaller ui components would really not be usable with fingers.
Try the More Icons app. Makes your screen a lot more appealing and cleaner, though sometimes I get fat fingers and poke the wrong icon, but that doesn't happen too much.
A follow up to this issue: there's an app on the market called Screen Resolution that shows the actual pixels being used on the screen. The first pic is of the Archos 5 and N1 and the second is the G1. On the A5 and N1, the UI isn't taking full advantage of the true resolution of their screens. The A5 uses close to the screen's actual res, which is why elements on screen appear generally smaller and there's more on screen than on the N1, while still quite finger friendly BTW. I still think options to scale the UI for user preference would be a nice addition to the OS, especially when even higher res screens come out, and we end up with a a 1024x768 screen running the UI at a mere 640x480, or something to that effect.
You have to remember that the A5 has a much larger screen than the N1, even tho they run the same resolution. I think if you were to scale the N1 to its true resution, you would not be able to use the touch screen as good.
I'm not talking about going A5 size on the N1, but the fact is the UI isn't taking full advantage of the N1's screen capabilities.
A good comparison is like trying to your PC desktop @ 1920 x 1080 on a 17" compared to a 42" screen with the default 96 DPI setting in windows vista/7. I actually run 1920 x 1080 native on my 17 inch laptop and with the default 96 DPI everything from the text to the icons are really tiny. I have to take the DPI up to 133 (40% bigger) for it to be even usable. Well unless your idea of pleasure is squinting just trying to see the mouse pointer, never mind reading any text.
Which is exactly why the icons on the N1 are much larger (use more pixels per icon) than on the A5. You have to remember that although they both have the same resolution, the N1 is a much physically smaller screen. As you have linked on your picture with the A5 and N1 side by side, you can see on teh A5 the icons is 7 icon by 5 icons (7x5) while on the N1 it's 5x4 icons, but viewing the icons are of similar physical size. If you "used the full capabilities" on the N1's resolution as you suggest, by putting a 7x5 icon grid, the icons are going to be too small. Well everyone has their preferences, but unless the typical user have baby finger people in general are going to have a hard time just trying to press the correct icon and not the one next to it.
I'm not specifically talking about having the N1 display at the same DPI as the A5, but to have an option to change resolution and scaling. The UI running at 320x533 seems arbitrarily low for the UI. Something like 400(or 480)x640 would quite usable and provide the homescreen with additional realestate. Frankly, wanting the OS to be able to provide for higher resolutions along with options to enlarge elements and text on the N1 is perfectly reasonable.
I don't think you understand, the UI does run at 800x420, just because the icons are the same size as a lower resolution device doesn't make the UI lower resolution overall.
I was wandering because I saw a windows 8 screenshot and when I looked at via the photos app it filled the screen. It had 6 rows and everything appeared smaller because thta screenshot was taken probably with a higher res display. My laptop is only 1366x768. And I googled but couldn't find anything but found out that lowering something called DPI makes things smaller. Any way to do so.
MsEvyLynch said:
I was wandering because I saw a windows 8 screenshot and when I looked at via the photos app it filled the screen. It had 6 rows and everything appeared smaller because thta screenshot was taken probably with a higher res display. My laptop is only 1366x768. And I googled but couldn't find anything but found out that lowering something called DPI makes things smaller. Any way to do so.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Higher res screens are capable of more rows
Sent from my Kindle Fire running CM10.1/SGT7
goldflame09 said:
Higher res screens are capable of more rows
Sent from my Kindle Fire running CM10.1/SGT7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its not just the rows. Mainly everything on the screen is smaller which I like.
If your laptop was for some reason pre-configured for a low DPI, then you can adjust that in Control Panel (just type "DPI" in Start search and look under Settings). However, your laptop has a very low resolution (it is *just* higher than my phone...) so it's probably at 100% DPI and you just need a higher-res screen if you want to display more stuff on the screen at once.
Setting a <100% scaling factor, even if it were supported in Windows, would be a bad idea because some thin lines (such as, for example, text) would blur or vanish entirely.
Icons on windows are a fixed size. Don't know it from the top of my head but lets say its 64 pixels for a standard desktop icon (I like that number).
Take 2 laptops with 15" screens. One has a higher resolution (lets say a 1080p screen) than the other (720p). The one with a 1080p screen has more pixels in the same area, this is measured in either dpi or ppi. Dots/Pixels per inch.
Of course in the above scenario the 1080p screen is going to have a higher dpi.
Now lets assume we have a 64 dpi screen. This means in a row of pixels 1 inch long there are 64 pixels. Our lovely 64 pixel desktop icon is going to end up being 1 inch wide.
Then we get a 32 dpi screen. 64 pixels for our icon will end up being 2 inches.
Its a hardware issue. You can't just turn up the dpi of your screen. You can attempt to use software to output your desktop to a higher res and downscale it to fit your screen but this will distort text and give other issues. you can turn the dpi down on some devices, if you got your device new then the dpi will already be set to max.
If you expressly want smaller icons then your going to need a new laptop ideally, and I doubt you are quite that bothered about it
SixSixSevenSeven said:
Icons on windows are a fixed size. Don't know it from the top of my head but lets say its 64 pixels for a standard desktop icon (I like that number).
Take 2 laptops with 15" screens. One has a higher resolution (lets say a 1080p screen) than the other (720p). The one with a 1080p screen has more pixels in the same area, this is measured in either dpi or ppi. Dots/Pixels per inch.
Of course in the above scenario the 1080p screen is going to have a higher dpi.
Now lets assume we have a 64 dpi screen. This means in a row of pixels 1 inch long there are 64 pixels. Our lovely 64 pixel desktop icon is going to end up being 1 inch wide.
Then we get a 32 dpi screen. 64 pixels for our icon will end up being 2 inches.
Its a hardware issue. You can't just turn up the dpi of your screen. You can attempt to use software to output your desktop to a higher res and downscale it to fit your screen but this will distort text and give other issues. you can turn the dpi down on some devices, if you got your device new then the dpi will already be set to max.
If you expressly want smaller icons then your going to need a new laptop ideally, and I doubt you are quite that bothered about it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you could get a new laptop/moniter or highlight all the icons on the desktop and zoom out and they will become smaller
I hear they lower the res from 1440 to 1080 in the G3 so is there a way to lower the screen resolution in the G2 from 1080p to 720p?
I couldn't find anything about it in search.
Screen resolution of an lCD is a physical attribute, it cannot be changed. You can change the software to renderer the image so you would get a lower resolution data to show, and since android source is available, it is technically possible. I doubt anybody tried, because our device has a adequite computing power to generate 1080p images. On the other hand, lg g3 has almost same power, but it displays almost double size image. For g2, it won't worth the lost of quality.
The issue is, since LCD will display it on its physical resolution(there is no other way), your image quality will be far worse than the down sampled version. For example, if you render the sceen at 720p, and show it on a 720p 5.2" display, you will lose ~%55 of your data, but since you render your source on this resolution, will be sharp, just won't have so much detail. If you display this 720p image in 1080p display however, screen resolution cannot be changed, so your screen will try to calculate the missing %55, and then show you the result. Since there is no original data, it assumes the missing pixels were like the ones around them, which means your result will be blurry.
As a side note, old tube displays does not have a resolution, they can support various resolutions. We used to set resolution to our taste between speed and detail back then.
enigmanp covered the technical aspect of it and I'll just follow up with my own personal experience.
I had a chinese android tablet running at 2048x1536 resolution, the same resolution commonly found in iPad tablets.
My Android tablet sometimes perform sluggish because of the high resolution. Even though the CPU was a quad core 1Ghz, it's still chinese and the GPU wasn't great either. So I lowered the resolution and everything was blurred and not sharp at all (due to the reasons enigmamp explained above). I DID notice an improvement in overall speed, but apps started misbehaving and it was all a huge mess.
Now the only reason I did that was because I found my tablet lacking smoothness/performance. I just don't quite see why you'd want to do that on the G2 since the CPU and GPU can clearly handle even the most intensive 3D games on high detail. Could you please explain?
vPro97 said:
Could you please explain?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mainly to save on battery.
enginmanap said:
Screen resolution of an lCD is a physical attribute, it cannot be changed. You can change the software to renderer the image so you would get a lower resolution data to show, and since android source is available, it is technically possible. I doubt anybody tried, because our device has a adequite computing power to generate 1080p images. On the other hand, lg g3 has almost same power, but it displays almost double size image. For g2, it won't worth the lost of quality.
The issue is, since LCD will display it on its physical resolution(there is no other way), your image quality will be far worse than the down sampled version. For example, if you render the sceen at 720p, and show it on a 720p 5.2" display, you will lose ~%55 of your data, but since you render your source on this resolution, will be sharp, just won't have so much detail. If you display this 720p image in 1080p display however, screen resolution cannot be changed, so your screen will try to calculate the missing %55, and then show you the result. Since there is no original data, it assumes the missing pixels were like the ones around them, which means your result will be blurry.
As a side note, old tube displays does not have a resolution, they can support various resolutions. We used to set resolution to our taste between speed and detail back then.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So why it doesn't get blurry on the G3 then?
If it's to save battery, I doubt you'll see much of a change.
The GPU is working on a smaller load but most of the time it's running at 200 MHz anyway. But I'm no expert, I'm just telling what I know and what I've experienced. I'll head over to the g3 thread to read more!
Reducing the number of pixels would help you to save battery if you are using a phone with AMOLED screen, sadly it is not the case with LG G2. So even by turning the resolution down, you are using pretty much the same amount of battery as you would with full 1080p resolution.
If you want to go ahead with it anyway, there are plenty of apps on the play store which does this. Just search "resolution" in the play store and you'll find them. However I don't think this will help your battery life at all, nor do I recommend it.
Late addition
Well, when i found out this was an option i just had to tinker. I have a G2 that is my daily driver and a S6 for back up. I changed it to 900x1600 480dpi and it works just fine. The camera touch focus is a little off, but otherwise it is sooper smooth now. I also throttle the CPU down. So both together I get a good experience and decent battery life. I know this is a late response, but to anyone out there with root and some lackluster performance might want to give this a shot. I needed to reboot once to correct some keyboard skewing. I also adjusted the height of the keyboard to compensate for the change in real estate. Works like a champ, no real noticeable degradation in viewing pics or videos. I'm going to try this on my Nook Hd+. It needs a shot in the arm (no pun intended).
villain222 said:
Well, when i found out this was an option i just had to tinker. I have a G2 that is my daily driver and a S6 for back up. I changed it to 900x1600 480dpi and it works just fine. The camera touch focus is a little off, but otherwise it is sooper smooth now. I also throttle the CPU down. So both together I get a good experience and decent battery life. I know this is a late response, but to anyone out there with root and some lackluster performance might want to give this a shot. I needed to reboot once to correct some keyboard skewing. I also adjusted the height of the keyboard to compensate for the change in real estate. Works like a champ, no real noticeable degradation in viewing pics or videos. I'm going to try this on my Nook Hd+. It needs a shot in the arm (no pun intended).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it would be nice if you share a "how to" as well
i tried lowering the resolution on my tablet and G2 with some apps from the playstore - but only thing i got was an unstable device(s)...
desertmod1 said:
I hear they lower the res from 1440 to 1080 in the G3 so is there a way to lower the screen resolution in the G2 from 1080p to 720p?
I couldn't find anything about it in search.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
download terminal
write in terminal :
su [ENTER]
wm size 720x1280 && wm density 220 [ENTER]
new density: new resolution * current dpi / old resolution ( for e.g. 720*1280*480/(1080*1920) = 213), altough i tested, and it seems that 240 is the best (for me), but it looks awful, for me, so i will go back to full hd + 410 dpi
ofc root required )
anyway, please share with us if it will be any battery life improvement
enginmanap said:
As a side note, old tube displays does not have a resolution, they can support various resolutions. We used to set resolution to our taste between speed and detail back then.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now I miss those glory days of correcting CRT display alignment and freedom to changes aspect ratio/resolution beyond the DAC supported rate at the expense of mild irreversible eye's retina damage. Lol. :laugh: