In article <alpine.OSX.0.99999.0711220930110.11691@pangtzu.pa nda.com>,
Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Mitch wrote:
> > it isn't very big, and it certainly isn't big compared to anything that
> > has close to that screen res.
>
> iPhone is huge compared to devices which have twice or four times the
> screen resolution. Apple must have gotten a cheap deal on some old
> technology LCDs

There is a much smaller portable device with resolution of 960x640? What
is it? That would be more than twice the resolution of the Nokia E90,
which is more expensive than the iPhone and heavier.

....

> I am not satisfied with an Internet access device that has a cheap, tiny,
> 320x480 screen. Access to "the real Internet" requires at least 800
> pixels of width (preferably 1024 or more) and at least 480 pixels of
> height (preferably 600, 768, or more).

That would be very nice. What device that connects via the cell network
and is small enough to be about as convenient as the iPhone meets those
requirements?

The closest I could come was the E90, with 800x352, but it had enough
other problems so that I sent it back.

....

> LCD screens are on the market that are not substantially larger than
> iPhone, but have 800x600 and 1024x600 resolutions. The 800x600 screen is
> on a device that sells for slightly more than 1/2 the price of iPhone.

Is that device a cell phone?

Also, I'm not sure how much good additional resolution does without
additional screen size.

....

> iPhone is not "the best Internet access device." As an Internet access
> device, it is slightly better than most consumer phones; but quite
> inadequate compared to other mobile devices on the market. The Nokia 800
> kicks iPhone butt in this regard.

But isn't a phone. And weighs about four times as much as the iPhone.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now