HP Prime should have higher resolution screen

[LHH]

I hate to be the wet blanket but I think they missed the boat by not upping the screen resolution. Yes, slightly more expensive, slightly more power but higher resolution would afford much better text formatting for equations and of course better graphing as well. I believe the stated resolution is the same as the Casio fx-CG10 I have and it's useable but quite clunky at times when displaying equations, special mathematical symbols, etc. Not that I won't buy one but they could have put this race to an end by raising the screen resolution bar.

Just my opinion of course.

LHH

[Matt Kernal]

Quote:

---

I believe the stated resolution is the same as the Casio fx-CG10

---

Casio FX-CG10:   384 x 216


HP Prime:        320 x 240


TI Nspire CX:    320 x 240

[Mic]

Casio ClassPad 400 : 320*528

http://www.calc-bank.com/index.php?mod=archives&ac=voir&id=10001251

The screen is much more higher but I personnaly prefer a standard screen.

[Gilles Carpentier]

For a 3.1" screen, imo there is no need to have a better resolution.

The problem is more in the operating system : use better font and allow the user to choose the size of the font.

Tim wrote that the Prime will use an anti aliasing system : we will see.
The video seems good to me on this aspect (but it's simulated image). Perhaps the font in the video looks too big: But if it works like the 39GII you could choose the font size. With such resolution on a small screen, the problem become ....our eyes ;) You can improve the resolution of the screen but you can't improve the resolution of your eyes.

Edited: 23 Apr 2013, 2:55 a.m.

[Pete Wilson]

My math says that's only 138ppi - especially with an RGB screen, the human eye can see a lot smaller than that.

A higher resolution screen also needs more CPU, and ideally highly optimized coding.

Hopefully they will use some type of sub pixel rendering to help.

[bhtooefr]

I thought it was 3.5"... at 320x240, that's 114 ppi.

Anyway, Tim did say that it had anti-aliasing. That will help, but it'll still look mediocre compared to modern smartphone platforms, which are pushing over 300 ppi, and also have anti-aliasing. And, even with poor eyesight, higher resolution can still help.

CPU performance depends on how aggressively they clocked the CPU - a 400 MHz ARM9 as Tim mentioned could do quite decently, although the way he phrased it, it may not actually ever run at 400 MHz (just like how the 50g never actually runs at 203 MHz)

In any case, 39gII DESTROYS the 50g on performance, despite being clocked slower and having the same generation CPU (66 MHz ARM926EJ-S instead of the 75 MHz ARM920T (just as fast for most code) of the 50g). Interestingly, the 39gII's SoC is capable of 320 MHz. Could be some fun overclocking to be had there.

Yes, you need to have enough CPU to actually push those pixels - case in point, the dog-slow TI-84+CSE, with the SAME CPU as its predecessors, pushing TWO HUNDRED TIMES the data per frame (well, add in 8 or so bits per frame for the monochrome 84+'s annunciators) - but I really don't think that'll be a problem with the Prime at all.