Comments on: Some thoughts on screen resolution and ultra-portables

By: NSK

NSK — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:33:24 +0000

I use two Flybooks and they come with a 8.9″ screen and 1024×600. I actually find the resolution too low, and I would love to have at least 1280×800 on it. Small fonts is not so much of a problem because you can put the subnotebook closer to you or zoom in. I see the issue of readability largerly as a software issue rather than a hardware issue, so I think manufacturers should put the highest resolution they can on their products and just pressure the software makers to create programs that can work well with any resolution (ie easy zoom-in, zoom-out).

By: suzy

suzy — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:25:10 +0000

My son’s computer is stuck on a resolution too small for any of us to read (he set it this way by mistake). It’s windows xp. Anybody know how to fix this? Even a magnifying glass won’t let us see the words on the screen. Thanks very much.

By: Fernando

Fernando — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 13:37:49 +0000

The Flybook and the Fujitsu P1510D have pretty much the same screen size and the same native resolution (1024 x 600), so they are comparable as far as this discussion goes. I have owned both in the past and would favor the Fujitsu on the counts of processor and battery life. The screen on the Flybook is somewhat brighter though.

By: jk

jk — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 09:13:30 +0000

Steve, the FlyBook is a nice device but it is impossible to see one of these anywhere so I can’t really add anything of significance about it. It is certainly pricey but overall an attractive unit.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 23:17:35 +0000

What are you views on the FlyBook? It’s very similar to a UMPC type device and it holds a 1024X600 Resolution screen while maintaining 8.9″ touchscreen capability. Seems to be nearly everything that you needed in regards to screen size/resolution.

By: Lorie Ghamy

Lorie Ghamy — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:56:55 +0000

Jus a precision : Nice to go to 1024 x 576, only when using a mouse !

Why there is no 1024 x 576 like wa a wide desk (with 800x 480 view) able to be adequate with the stylus ?

An idea for a good new freware ?

I think so.

By: Rob Bushway

Rob Bushway — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:48:12 +0000

I think the P1510D fits that bill the closest, without being an Origami device.

By: Lorie Ghamy

Lorie Ghamy — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:46:31 +0000

A good way for play with resolution with a Samsung Q1 I install first the freeware Toggleres http://users.forthnet.gr/pat/efotinis/programs/toggleres.html Then i put the external moniteur on the VGA plug and i choose Monitor for Intel graphic output. After that i make a change (CTR+click on Toggleres.exe icon and put the 1024 x 768 like second resolution. Then i come-back to portable device screen (with Intel graphic setting). No, with toggleres on quicklaunch on the taskbar, i can switch between 800x480 (native resolution) and 1024 x 576 like a wide space i can move around. Nice to exploit some application unable to run without 1024x768. From te same author, you have deskpin to put a windows on the top (with a pin on the bar). Nice to access to somme OK or NEXT icons. http://users.forthnet.gr/pat/efotinis/programs/deskpins.html

By: Josh Einstein

Josh Einstein — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 06:11:20 +0000

The problem is, Windows still equates screen resolution with size. They are independent. A “high resolution screen” is supposed to be able to display the same objects with better granularity.

Fortunately, help is on the way. Microsoft’s new Windows Presentation Foundation lets developers easily create scalable (as in zoomable) applications that can size themselves appropriately for your device. So high resolution screens that pack more pixels won’t make the application smaller… just crisper and more detailed. Depending on the application (such as a spreadsheet or document) you may have controls to zoom the application in or out.

This is one of the reasons why I proclaimed WPF as the best thing to happen to Tablet PC’s in a long time.

http://josheinstein.com/journal/archive/2006/03/08/1319.aspx

By: e

Thu, 29 Jun 2006 06:00:00 +0000