one possible positive is the "1.4GHz qualcomm dual-core" which would suggest a Snapdragon 400 series SoC sporting an OpenGL ES 3.0 compliant GPU.

if i were reasonably confident that Jolla intended to adopt this API (at a later date?) via a compliant android driver with libhybris it might be enough to swing my disappointment with the "HD" screen.

[edit] belay that.

the 1.4GHz Snapdragon 400 is actually a quad core A7, rather than a dual-core Krait, so no real suggestion that it will sport an Adreno 305 gpu.

[edit]

There is quite many 1.4ghz reaching dualcore snapdragon chips to choose from, so if we are pessimistic it could have even the old S3 series.
But that is doubtful, it probably has at least a S4 Plus/Pro or a 400 series at lower clocks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapdr...tem_on_chip%29

To all concerned with 1gb RAM not being enough, it's been confirmed that Jolla will use their own application compatibility layer to provide android app support. I'm not a tech guy myself, but I think that the layer will be highly optimized to Sailfish OS to provide smooth user experience using the apps through it. My 2 cents, even though I lack the general knowledge about these things. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

And about the pre-book campaign, too bad they didn't reveal all the specs. though I think they will soonishly. I don't mind qHD, everything's an upgrade compared to my Nokia C5-00 (also, if qHD doesn't consume as much power as the higher resolution ones, I'll actually prefer it then, having been grown with phones that last at least 2 days... I hope Jolla phone lasts even 2 days... please ) And one more thing, at least my primary reason for buying a Jolla phone isn't its specs but the Sailfish OS. Of course the specs shouldn't be horrible, but to me at least they aren't. Opinions, though.

Now I started to think if I change from n9 should consider as an upgrade...
especially same among of ram, comparable display(even doesn't have lps)

I think the OS is an upgrade at least! And to some extent the specs should be valued in relation to that. But without actual physical knowledge about it's performance it's hard to say. Display can of course be valued independently, and some other specs too.

Agreed, although it's a bit of a weird situation... Harmattan/Maemo users who want continuity OS wise are penalised to get a new device, only becasue Nokia didn't bother to continue this work [and hence didn't provide any upgrade to their devices].

Now, that's not Jolla's or Nokia's fault. This is how things work. If Harmatan had any further upgrades, you never know, I may even keep the N9 for a third year. But that won't be the case.

Regarding upgrading the N9 itself, 4G would be a very good excuse, provided you can actually use it in your network/area.

The rest of the specs are pretty standard. I carry a laptop around if I want to compile/edit videos/etc., so I really don't care. I even think that 2 cores is too much.

Well, the display and RAM are really a bit disapointing, but there are still some things, i consider as update:

• SD-card support
• replacable battery
• dual-core
• android compatibility

... and last but not least, "The Other Half" with not only NFC, but also power and databus connection is a really positive surprise, noone expected anymore.

I think the display is OK. I can only see as small as 0.1mm anyway. Do the math. I'd rather a display that a) renders faster b) consumes less battery than a more detailed one that I can't see anyway.

I do like the fact that the hardware is powerful enough to potentially connect the phone to a bigger screen/projector. That's quite cool. Not sure if that functionality is going to be available at OS/other half/whatever level.

The N9 is Pentile. It can hardly be compared to the N900's ppi.

Yep, as I have said in other threads on this subject, but forgot to mention specifically here.