Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Please read the post from GeneralAntilles.

:)

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Thank you ragnar!

One more question..

Is the touch screen reistive or capacitative? can we get that info from the kernel?

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

I repsectfully disagree with 2 out of the three items on your list.

800 by 480 on a screen that size is plenty as long as the scaling is done correctly. The iPhone has a lower resolution screen and you don't see anyone complaining about that browser because it scales so well.

5 mega pixel means nothing as long as the lens quality is poor. I would rather have a high quality AF 5 mp camera than a 12 mp with bad optics, if you look at the photo's from an N82 will prove my point

http://www.flickr.com/search/?s=int&q=n82&m=tags

The 128mb's of ram is something that I totally agree with. In a platform that can take ports from desktop systems so easily 256 mb's is a must for 2009.

If there is one thing (and only one thing) that I can say I love the iPhone for, it is showing that specs are not everything when it comes to tech and especially mobile tech.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Yeah the iphone i agree is a great device, but for me a device has to multitask. And multitasking is no small task. It needs good hardware.. I think apple made a choice between multitasking and better single tasking and so good for them and you.. but i just dont care.

And regarding the 5mpx camera.... i have the nokia n95 8gb. And know exactly how the pictures are.... but for a device releasing in 2009 and with nokia already using 5mpx since 2 years... i just wanted higher specs...

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Actually, you need a well written OS a bit more than you need better hardware. Beefer hardware means that you have to do more optimizations for efficiencies' sake in the OS. If you start with a hardware target that is already efficient, and then code around that, adding beefer hardware makes the system better.

Nokia has stated many times that they are more concerned at this time with refining the 5mpx Carl Zeiss lens and AF tech than getting into a megapixel race with LG/Samsung. Frankly, except for a few models (E71 and N81), they do have better quality optics than the rest.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Do I need to point out that there's hints there's on, internal MMC, a 768mb swap partition, 2gb linux partition and rest fat32.. Where do you think that might lead?

I mean, alone by the features I've seen so far, of both software and hardware hints, I'd go out and get moisture insurance for my RX-51 while getting it, just because I know I'd end up drooling nearby it for several hours when getting it.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

It is interesting to see what you can find from the Kernel code. The good thing is that you get a good hint what to expect, but please remember that some details or this kernel are not finalized/correct yet... :rolleyes:

Who thinks that the device appear disappointing, yes it may be, if you compare to some flagship products costing arm and leg. In my opinion the tablet HW cost has to be kept in line what customers are expected to pay, which in my case is about the same cost that previous tablets cost. If that pricing holds and the specs are roughly what we can see in this post, I'd be very tempted to purchase "yet another tablet". :D

Especially the 5Mpix camera: I currently have two devices, camera and camcorder that I'd like to quit carrying with me. But only if the quality of the camera (optics!) is good enough. Also, the camcorder I'm putting lots of hope considering the OMAP3 processing power... If it can do 640x480@30fps recording I'd be happy.

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

very nice so far!

I would rather take on a stable 5megapixel camera with good optics than have a crap camera with higher density.

any news on which GPS chipset (if any) has been identified?

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

Just to add to this, there are currently drivers for an auto-focus/zoom/image stabilisation chip (that means one of the above I presume, not all three, and it might even be being used to wave a pretty little feather around for all I know).

The FM transmitter looks like it can transmit RDS and the BT chip looks like it can receive FM with RDS (traffic data hacking anyone :)).

Re: What we do realistically see in the RX-51
 

That is cool- how common is this? I don't know that I've seen that in any of the iPod transmitters or any other small transmitter before.