
Maybe we're a little
biased, but we think blogs are great- especially when they allow big corporations to disseminate information and serve
as a communications channel for interacting with customers. Such is the case with the Windows Mobile Team Blog, where
Microsoft veteran Mike Calligaro answers a question that's crossed everyone's mind at one time or another: Why did big
M choose to support 240 x 240 resolutions for mobile screens, when rival Palm was making devices with 320 x 320
displays? Calligaro explains that when Microsoft was looking for a resolution to support that would improve upon QVGA
screens, the next logical step was of course VGA. But since they wanted the OS to also support QWERTY-based devices
with square screens, they could either choose to lop off pixels from QVGA and VGA versions of the code, or go with the
non-standard resolution of 320 x 320 (which Palm had naturally used to improve upon their old 160 x 160 devices).
Ultimately Microsoft chose the 240 x 240 route (which we're starting to see on devices now), along with 480 x 480
support (which will start to appear on future handsets) for backwards compatibility purposes: it's easier to scale QVGA
apps to look right on VGA screens than it is to scale back and forth with native 320 x 320 apps/screens. So there you
have it- apparently we've been comparing apples and oranges all along, or in this case hi-res versus lo-res
smartphones.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Pete M @ Feb 17th 2006 7:34AM
Thanks for that info!
Saif @ Feb 17th 2006 9:50AM
So, rather than make the interface more flexible, they chose to support resolutions that were graceful degradations from their target resolutions. It makes sense, but it's not very satisfying. I would have expected a bit more extended GUI support from an OS with the word "windows" in the name.
Ivan Icin @ Feb 17th 2006 2:38PM
240x240 is really too little for smartphone applications, whatever the reason.
Rob Mars @ Feb 18th 2006 9:27AM
They just don't get it.
Consumers don't give a sh*t about satisfying producers' product line lifecycle goals; they want to see products IMPROVE.
(you hear that, Palm?)
Lincoln @ Feb 19th 2006 3:52AM
A 650 would be wonderful!