Nokia n810 pics, Was: Real-time USB status information
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Woody on 5 May 2010 07:35 Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > > <http://skitch.com/woody/db2ae/text> > > > > That's a particularly jarring font. It *is* very crisp though. > > I think it's quite nice for a mono-space. Not too different from Monaco. I think it is ok. It is very legible on a small device, which is its job. Personally i always prefer hells programmer for a small monospaced font, but it does look ok. -- Woody
From: zoara on 6 May 2010 07:41 T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > I wonder why you (and others of course) go to the lengths of blocking > it and I don't seem to notice and even enjoy it sometimes? I suspect it's because you a) use Windows and b) use a desktop. The main problems people seem to have with Flash are stability and resource usage. On Windows you notice these less because Adobe have optimised Flash for Windows, but they haven't (or at least haven't so well) on the Mac. The difference in CPU usage on Windows and the Mac is quite astonishing, but other apps manage to be cross-platform without such issues so it would seem to be an Adobe shortcoming (though I have to admit I'm not sure whether Adobe's criticisms of Apple not opening up hardware acceleration APIs has merit; I suspect it does, but the next version of Flash will be evidence). If you use a desktop you are less likely to notice excessive CPU usage as it doesn't warm your lap to the point that you have to move the laptop to the desk... As for stability, I've noticed about the same number of browser hangs which seem attributable to Flash on both platforms. It's certainly telling that Chrome was designed from the ground up to isolate tabs/windows from each other in order to stop "plugins" from crashing the whole browser (instead they just crash the tab). It's also telling that Apple rearchitected Safari to provide the same isolation - you don't do that level of work for the hell of it, you need a genuine reason. And what else could "plugins" mean other than Flash? What plugins have enough Market penetration that two major browser vendors make software architecture decisions specifically to combat problems that the plugin causes? Oh, and Flash blockers don't remove any Flash functionaiity; they just stop Flash loading without user intervention. It means you don't get the stability and resource issues just from loading a web page; instead you have to explicitly load that content (you just click on the placeholder). Means you can open several tabs at once without worrying about burning your thighs - then read each page in turn, loading Flash on those where you want to. -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: zoara on 6 May 2010 11:00 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 3 May 2010 20:28:48 +0100, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) > > > > wrote: > > > > > I will take some pics though so you can see. > > > > > > > > Cheers. > > > > > > ok, here goes: > > > > > > The screen is physically the same size, although the nokia has a > > > higher > > > resolution. > > > > > > <http://skitch.com/woody/db2s6/size> > > > > > > which does give it quite fine resolution for text etc > > > > > > <http://skitch.com/woody/db2ae/text> > > > > That's a particularly jarring font. It *is* very crisp though. > > > > Does the n810 often have horizontal scrollbars on text? > > On web pages, yes, almost always. > It is 800 pixels across the screen, so less then 700 when you take the > scroll bars out and the side panel. People design web pages for over > 1024. Oooh, wince. > > > So you can see that the resolution of the nokia > > > > > > <http://skitch.com/woody/db2as/nokia-res> > > > > > > is noticably higher when zoomed in than the iphone > > > > > > <http://skitch.com/woody/db2a4/iphone-res> > > > > That's surely not to the same scale? > > Its not far out - it is about 3cm on the iPhone and 4cm of screen on > the > nokia. Crikey. In that case I'm astonished by those photos. > > The iPhone does have a more > > noticeable pixel grid, which I can make out in normal use sometimes. > > The > > N810 seems - from your photos - not to have such a visible grid. > > It doesn't. With my eyes I can't actually see the grid on the nokia > and > can on the iPhone. It is actually less noticable than you would think > due to better icon design on the iPhone, but it would be nice if they > upped it a bit. Aye. Roll on the rumoured hi-res iPhone display. The iPhone has always had a decent screen, but when compared to other kit (like your N810) the shortcomings show up. At least the iPhone's touch detection is more accurate than average - don't think I could type so much if it was a bit fuzzy. But a hires screen like the N810's could help with reading... Small black text on white in particular always looks a bit fuzzed out and dirty... -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: zoara on 6 May 2010 11:00 Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > > <http://skitch.com/woody/db2ae/text> > > > > That's a particularly jarring font. It *is* very crisp though. > > I think it's quite nice for a mono-space. Not too different from > Monaco. Curious, I hadn't actually noticed it was monospaced. Not consciously. The jarringness that I felt was because it was monospaced (ie the odd differences in spacing between characters) but that was an entirely subconscious reaction. Odd *shakes head* -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: Woody on 6 May 2010 11:39
zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > Its not far out - it is about 3cm on the iPhone and 4cm of screen on > > the > > nokia. > > Crikey. In that case I'm astonished by those photos. I will do some photos with a tape measure too, just to check it is the same > > > The iPhone does have a more > > > noticeable pixel grid, which I can make out in normal use sometimes. > > > The > > > N810 seems - from your photos - not to have such a visible grid. > > > > It doesn't. With my eyes I can't actually see the grid on the nokia > > and > > can on the iPhone. It is actually less noticable than you would think > > due to better icon design on the iPhone, but it would be nice if they > > upped it a bit. > > Aye. Roll on the rumoured hi-res iPhone display. The iPhone has always > had a decent screen, but when compared to other kit (like your N810) the > shortcomings show up. At least the iPhone's touch detection is more > accurate than average - don't think I could type so much if it was a bit > fuzzy. But a hires screen like the N810's could help with reading... > Small black text on white in particular always looks a bit fuzzed out > and dirty... Roll on resolution independance! See, it is one of those 'nice to have' things. The nokia / htc etc fanbois would rave about that being a major issue against the iPhone, but the fact is I went from the nokia to the iPhone and never noticed it, until I took those pictures. The nokia has a great screen, and a passive digitiser that works with a cursor or a finger (it decides which depending on.. umm.. supposed to be the pressure, but I think it may just be the weather or something) and compared to the iPhone, it really seems very inaccurate, especially at the edges of the screen. I do like the nokia as a small computer, but as a thiing for 'normal people' it really doesn't make it. -- Woody |