This website is using cookies. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. More info. That's Fine
HPC:Factor Logo 
Latest Forum Activity

Data Evolution...Where Are You??!!

1 2
takwu Page Icon Posted 2005-07-12 4:53 AM
Avatar image of takwu
H/PC Elder

BC, Canada
dazz - 2005-07-11 6:49 PM
Who knows, maybe MS has something in their agreement that procludes OEMs from making a true VGA device. <shrug>

Well I can imagine the logic behind it. Standardizing the GUI helps keep all the apps compatible. If you make a "true VGA" device, and your users try to run all these QVGA apps on it, the response could be "this software looks unfinished". They'll get mad at the software makers, who in turn get mad at Microsoft for allowing this to happen.
With the current VGA setup (and for that matter, the original Toshiba e800 setup), all the QVGA apps look just like they do on a QVGA device. But of course, all this may be changing. The landscape option has already made a lot of things incompatible, but at least this is just an optional feature; you can always tell your users to switch back to portrait. But now here comes the iPaq 65xx, which is 240x240. I really don't know what's gonna happen to that...
There are definitely ways around the problem (I can imagine a few). But as I said before, it'd be tricky and risky, and so far no manufacturers can/would do it.
 Top of the page Quote Reply
dazz Page Icon Posted 2005-07-12 11:30 PM
I hear what you are saying but going with a VGA screen would be fairly simple. There could be the ability to switch the screen to only showing a 320x240 window (still using the higher res though), maybe either on the right or left side or in the middle. This could be a hardware button that you hit just to switch for the apps that need it. When you go to one this fine you just hit the button again.

Like you said, there are ways to do it, there just needs to be an obvious market need. Let's hope some OEM decides to give it a go.
 Top of the page Quote Reply
1 2
Jump to forum:
Seconds to generate: 0.203 - Cached queries : 59 - Executed queries : 8