Originally Posted by attila77

Here are two snaps. I didn't rotate them as the built-in pdf reader doesn't support rotation(yet), but the width (and thus letter size) is about right. I have no idea how you judged 3mm high characters on a N810. That would mean (huge) 1cm letters on a US letter sized paper.

You can clearly see the letters fitting between the 1mm lines (the sub/superscripts being less than 0.5mm). Reading this is NOT convenient, more resolution would NOT make it better from a practical standpoint (only more tempting to mess up your eyesight). There is only so much your eyes can resolve.

Originally Posted by solarion

The other part of your post doesn't have data; only assertions. "Reading this is NOT convenient, more resolution would NOT make it better from a practical standpoint (only more tempting to mess up your eyesight). There is only so much your eyes can resolve."

I dunno; we need some numbers here. It works for me: I read books in fbreader at similar (not same) size.

Originally Posted by Alex Atkin UK

Naturally, the former will look better but it would be pointless (not to mention insanely expensive) having a 3.5" 1024x600 screen. Sure it would render the font better, but to the human eye it would still look a blur.

Originally Posted by attila77

This part is irrelevant - you can render any document size on any display, it is 'only' the question of readability. On a 3.5" display you are talking about sub-millimeter sized letters, and if that's acceptable, I'd like to ask for a second opinion from your ophthalmologist Seriously, try it out on a N900 if you can, for example in terminal, you can use *really* small fonts but it's not pleasant at all, especially for prolonged use (like books and publications). And it's not the point of not having enough pixels, stuff simply gets so small you literally have to look at it like a baby, having the device 10cm from your eyes.

Originally Posted by ysss

I find it amusing that we are being pressed to come up with the data to back up what seems to be common sense to me, while the viewpoint that challenges the common sense doesn't have much to back it up.

Originally Posted by edt

I would love a _tablet_ with a 1024x600 screen that could optionally function as a phone. It should have usb slot(s) designed for a 3g doggle and an optional gps.

Originally Posted by edt

And once you hit your mid fortys holding it 10cm from your eyes just reveals a blur. The n900's small screen size is a really show stopper for me. The character size on n8x0 is on the edge of what I can use.

I would love a _tablet_ with a 1024x600 screen that could optionally function as a phone. It should have usb slot(s) designed for a 3g doggle and an optional gps. This would make it easier for Nokia to sell the tablet as it would not need to be certified as a 'phone' and the cell companies could make money by selling the doggles and plans along with IP phone software (I want to be able to recieve a call). In my case the internet functions are _much_ more important than the phone functions. The characters need to be big enough to see without zooming and the screen large enough to avoid most panning. No need for a HW keyboard either.

Originally Posted by attila77

I cannot quantify convenience for you, I don't have a 1000 people of various age, gender and eye-conditions at hand Some people have better vision than others, true. I'm not at all convinced, however, that there is a sufficient (%) amount of people out there who would appreciate (=see) the difference in higher resolution for this particular use-case, considering the extra engineering and cost involved.

Also, I'm not kidding about the danger of prolonged short-focusing on your eye (which is a result of holding the device closer to your eyes so you can make out the small but high-res letters). DO ask an ophthalmologist.

Originally Posted by solarion

What we're arguing about is whether anyone would notice the difference between 1024x600 and 800x480 on a 4.1" or 3.5" screen (n810 and n900, respectively).