data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/08c2c/08c2cbaa0f3f92cc8e72cef2e436f91a52b0bb9d" alt="Handhelds Handhelds"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4aed5/4aed504ce8aee2dc05aad5c795061ff521803c58" alt="Hardware Hardware"
Palm Offers Refund to m130 Owners 222
EyesWideOpen writes "On Wednesday Palm began notifying registered m130 owners "that they were entitled to a full refund, including taxes paid on the PDA" for misleading them about the actual number of colors the product supports. The m130 was originally advertised as supporting 65,536 colors when in actuality it can only display 58,621. Owners who choose to forfeit the refund and keep the PDA could instead download a free version of the video game SimCity." Looks like a great deal for those who don't care about the bit depth of their PDA, and a way out for those who do.
64K on colours on a 160x160 screen. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:64K on colours on a 160x160 screen. (Score:2)
Woo Classic Maxis! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Woo Classic Maxis! (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.pilotgear.com/
Just do a search for Simcity in the software section
Re:Woo Classic Maxis! (Score:2, Insightful)
That game is definitely a productivity virus... even more so than Solitaire (Minesweeper, Hearts, etc.).
Re:Woo Classic Maxis! (Score:2)
Does it make a big difference to people? (Score:2, Interesting)
I presume people are not purchasing these to watch movies
I think it will be interesting to see how many people ask for the refund...
Re:Does it make a big difference to people? (Score:5, Informative)
The REAL point of contention is not the number of colors, but the fact that Palm Inc. lied to its customers.
Re:Does it make a big difference to people? (Score:1)
is this really a big deal? (Score:1)
Re:is this really a big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you return your Pentium because it does almost all divisions correctly?
Like the Pentium bug this isn't a cases of whether users will notice a difference. It's about a company owning up to its mistakes.
Re:is this really a big deal? (Score:2)
The odd part is, the last sentence ("Like the Pentium bug...") more or less contradicts the entire purpose of the analogy. I'm beginning to think Target Drone didn't say what he meant to say. The Pentium bug IS a case where users will notice a difference -- namely, incorrect results, weird crashes, etc. In the Palm case, most people wouldn't be able to tell a difference.
Not that I'm saying that the company shouldn't own up, but let's not use false logic to make a point.
Re:is this really a big deal? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:is this really a big deal? (Score:2)
I shouldn't have said that there's no material difference between 58k colors and 64k colors (or 12-bit vs. 16-bit, or however you want to characterize it); that was bad phrasing on my part, and I apologize. My point was that the analogy to the Pentium division bug was flawed, in that the two situations were not comparable.
To put it another way... a division bug of that magnitude renders the CPU essentially unusable for everyone, but a MHz misclassification of that magnitude is simply annoying. Although I suppose you COULD argue that the color difference makes the Palm "unusable," but I still maintain that a majority of people would not consider the Palm unusable even if they DID know about the color difference, and ultimately that the Palm color difference is not fatal the way such a division bug would be.
Re:is this really a big deal? (Score:2)
Intel's mistake at the time was saying "this bug won't affect anyone". They didn't intentially create the problem, it was a bug in the chip design. They made a PR blunder by trying to sweep it under the rug, but they finally reversed themselves. It meant a huge earnings hit at the time (although it created a nice aftermarket for cheap Pentium-powered jewerly).
Does the use of 12-bit color make the m130 unusable? No, of course not. It's probably a great 12-bit device -- even better because of the "special dithering" that gets an effective 58000 colors.
The error here is Palm advertising it as a 16-bit device in the first place. The even greater error is Palm continuing to say "it can display 58000 colors, not 65536". They need to fess up with "it only REALLY displays 4096 colors". That they haven't said that is an example of their continued arrogance. I hope the market punishes them.
Darn, I should've sold my Palm stock.
[I was originally going to mod the parent down, but I felt like responding instead]
Re:is this really a big deal? (Score:2)
Re:is this really a big deal? (Score:2)
The comment I meant was Dirtside's first response to Target Drone [slashdot.org], where he says (repeatedly) that the Pentium with the floating point bug were useless.
Re:is this really a big deal? (Score:2)
Re:is this really a big deal? (Score:2)
Actually it has to approximate 93% of its colors (all but 4096 of its "58000").
A CPU that miscalculates things is going to cause *actual* problems.
The miscalculations were actually hard to come by; they only happenened in the FPU and only under rare circumstances. The vast majority of Pentium users never encountered the bug.
let's not use false logic to make a point.
Let's not use misrepresentation to make a counterpoint.
Re:is this really a big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is not that it can display only "58000" colors, but that it can really only display 4000 colors. That 58,000 number is arrived at by "using a variety of techniques--including turning pixels on and off and combining nearby pixels." (News.com article [com.com]) So yeah, if Palm advertised that the m130 could display 65536 (16bpp) and it can only do 4096 (12bpp), then I would be complaining. HP had the same problem [com.com] with earlier Jornadas they released, because they advertised 16bpp and only supported 12bpp (the crazy thing here is that they call the problem a "glitch", when it's a simple fact that the screens they used only supported 12bpp -- sounds like a glitch in the manufacturing process by choosing to use a cheaper screen). Compaq didn't have this problem, because they always advertised at 12bpp, not 16bpp.
In other words, the issue here isn't that the PDA can only do 12bpp, but that Palm advertised it at 16bpp and was caught out in their lie.
Why do you assume Palm is lying about the 58k? (Score:2)
(I used the same technique to get 5-level greyscale on a 1-bit (black & white) Newton in a demo program called Time Domain Grey.)
Re:Why do you assume Palm is lying about the 58k? (Score:1)
The difference is that you can the end result is different between true 64,000 and fake 58,000 colors made out of 4,000.
See http://www.geocities.com/an0nym0vs when it's not slashdotted.
Re:Why do you assume Palm is lying about the 58k? (Score:1)
Re:Why do you assume Palm is lying about the 58k? (Score:2)
If you can get decent greyscale out of it, why not? What matters is the system has sufficient power to display a decent greyscale and the manufacturer provides an API whereby application developers can use it. If developers can call an API to draw a 50% grey pixel at location (x,y) and that's what happens, I call that a device with a greyscale screen. Regardless of what voodoo the OS is doing to get that effect out of the hardware.
(In the case of my Newton application the hires mode I created was hard on the battery and only worked really well in a small window, but with a faster CPU and support from the manufacturer, we could easily have called it a device with a greyscale display.)
The hardware can only display 12-bit (4096) color, so they should just advertise it as such.
What you can address at the hardware level is not the last word on the subject. Or should I have ignored what users saw on their screen and advertised Time Domain Grey as displaying 1-bit color? :-)
Re:is this really a big deal? (Score:2)
Re:is this really a big deal? (Score:2, Redundant)
And yes, if I had bought an m130 for viewing photos, I'd be infuriated, because that's blatant false advertisement. At least they're doing the honorable thing, if a bit late.
Re:is this really a big deal? (Score:3, Informative)
I didn't know what dithering was before I looked at the picture but this is what I gather from it. If you have a 1 bit display (just black and white), if you make every other pixel black, and every other pixel white, it will give the appearance of being gray (especially at higher resolutions). That is what dithering is. This is opposed to showing a pixel that is actually gray (half black half white, that is, each sub pixel [red, blue, green] on equal intensity, at half intensity). So the difference between 12 bit dithering, as the m130 does, and true 58,000 colors is considerable. The fact that Palm's spin on it is that it shows 58,000 colors instead of 64,000 leads me to believe that they knew all along about the limitations in the device.
Even if you can get 12-bit (dithered) color to look almost as good as non-dithered 16 bit color (which you can't, but lets just assume), it's still fraud. 16 bit color can be made to look even better if it is dithered. The only way they could've avoided fraud (and even then it would've been sketchy) is if they said "16-bit quality color" or "as good as 16-bit color"
And whoever thinks that the difference between 12 bit color and 16 bit color is just for bragging rights, I suggest they play video games. Even with 32 bit color, if alpha is using some of those bits, you will *still* see color banding, especially in motion. The next generation of videocards is working on 64-bit color (although, they're not actually displaying at 64 bits, just 64 bits are used for calculations, to minimize cumulative color distortion through multiple passes).
Re:is this really a big deal? (Score:1)
Just a small nitpick, but 32bpp has a built-in 8 bits for alpha, so you're not sacrificing any color quality by using it. 32bpp means 8 bits red, 8 bits green, 8 bits blue, and 8 bits alpha, or 24bpp + alpha. Yes, you may still see color banding (not as much as you would with 16bpp, of course), but I really doubt you'll notice it so much. As far as the upcoming 64bpp cards go, you're absolutely right -- they'll still only display 24 bit color, but the added bits will allow for greater precision during multiple rendering passes (mmm ... 16 bit red, 16 bit green, 16 bit blue, and 16 bit alpha). If display technology were to catch up to video cards (is that possible? can CRTs do better than 24 bit color? I'd bet LCDs could, but that'll initially be very expensive), then we could actually display 64bpp. Of course, that still wouldn't shut up the people that complain that even though 24bpp allows for 16million colors, there are still colors it can't display (uniform steps between each 256 shades of r, g, and b means that there are some subtle shades that nobody will miss but photo professionals, if even them).
You left out the time-domain part (Score:3, Insightful)
So far so good. But suppose you generate TWO complementary frames of dithered 50% grey. In one frame the first pixel is white, in the other it is black. If "O" is white and "X" is black your two frames look like this:
FRAME #1:
OXOX
XOXO
OXOX
FRAME #2:
XOXO
OXOX
XOXO
Now, alternate displaying frames #1 and #2 in rapid succession on an LCD display with a slow decay rate. The resulting image looks like this:
COMBINED FRAME:
****
****
****
Where "*" looks like a pixel that is 50% grey. Not dithered grey, real grey.
Re:You left out the time-domain part (Score:2)
If the alternate frames were all black and all white you'd easily see the flashing. That's why the dithering part is required, to break up the patterns a bit, so your brain can't see the solid patterns being painted to the screen.
for a slow lcd refresh, I'm sure this would bother me.
It's the slow decay rate that makes the technique possible. On many LCDs if you paint a color it fades out slowly rather than instantly. The slower this decay rate is relative to the refresh rate, the more color range you should be able to sneak in with this sort of technique. Hmm, I should go do some experiments to see how well this works on current Palm hardware...
But I've already got a PortaPam! (Score:5, Funny)
"We lied to you, so here is a refund... oh, you like the product anyways? Well is is a crappy game for free. Oh, you already subscribe to alt.warez? Well... here... um. *click*"
Re:But I've already got a PortaPam! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But I've already got a PortaPam! (Score:5, Funny)
"I pirated this because I'd rather spend my 20 bucks on hookers and blow." --ACCEPTABLE
"I pirated this because everytime I download warez the DMCA becomes my bitch!" --UNACCEPTABLE(But this mode of thinking automatically grants superuser access on
Re:But I've already got a PortaPam! (Score:4, Funny)
"Hey, my time is worth less than $10 an hour! Does anyone know of an opening at Jiffy Lube?" --PITIABLE
Intrinsic value of warezing (Score:2)
I'll spend much longer when fixing something figuring out *why* it broke then just "getting it working again and forgetting about it" because in the long term, this pays off. Well, at least I hope so.
I remember this being written somewhere in a book or magazine: "They were software engineers, the sort of people that will spend four hours calculating different trip routes to save ten minutes taking the shortest possible trip".
This may be less true for simple piracy, but if you're actually cracking the software yourself, there's some educational value to the whole process.
Re:But I've already got a PortaPam! (Score:2)
Re:But I've already got a PortaPam! (Score:1)
$20 wouldn't get you far for hookers and/or blow anyway.
Re:But I've already got a PortaPam! (Score:2)
Re:But I've already got a PortaPam! (Score:1)
Tightwad!
Re:But I've already got a PortaPam! (Score:1)
Your wife will probably think it's sweet if you go out and buy Bejeweled for her, too.
Re:But I've already got a PortaPam! (Score:3, Funny)
if she's been playing a pirate copy you can tell everyone you 'made an honest woman out of her'
So can I sell SimCity if I don't want it? (nt) (Score:1, Troll)
Re:So can I sell SimCity if I don't want it? (nt) (Score:1)
Comparison (Score:3, Informative)
However, by inspecting this picture, i think that Palm may actually be trying to cover up the fact that there are only 58000-some colors using the dithering technique and that in real life there are actually only 4096 colors.
Re:Comparison (Score:1)
what!? (Score:1, Funny)
Actually, (Score:5, Informative)
Palm users were really ripped off, IMHO.
Re:Actually, (Score:2)
How can you be ripped off if the company offers to buy the damn thing back from you if you don't like it?
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Actually, (Score:1)
Cause they wasted my time should I have bought it and now I have to waste more time returning it?
But hey, if they will pay the entire purchase price, I'd call it even by simply not buying misadvertised Palm produts (ie: Never again).
Fortunately I don't own a Palm. I hate stylus based entry methods.
But my mind might change on that when I see all sorts of super-cheap refurbished m130s on the market.
Re:Actually, (Score:2)
Re:Actually, (Score:5, Informative)
I learned a LOT about the lies of LCD resolutions when I was shopping for a VR/Television headset (that I never bought because _no one_ had them for show in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, except for a barely pre-beta-production pair at the Sony shop that were priced exorbitantly).
Non-consumer LCD specs are rated at their monochrome specifications, that is to say they are rated at 3x their resolution with no colour guarantees (because that's the job of the controller, not the LCD).
Consumer LCD specs are rated at their full colour specifications whenever they mention "colours" in the same line. For example, "Displays 160x160 resolution at 16-bit colour". However, if colours are *not* listed on the same line, its fair game to say its a 480x180 pixel display, _but_ on a fully fledged consumer device one would have to back that up with OS support for a fake monochome display using the separate colour pixels (which Palm does _not_ have).
Now, as far as raw CRTs and raw LCDs actually having bit depths associated with them, this is false. As the raw pixels on LCDs and the minimum size points formed by the shadow mask CRTs are purely analog in nature, you cannot state a bit depth for them. You are only limited by what the controller can do for an LCD, and with a CRT you are unlimited (unless the designer of the controller was on LSD at the time).
Anyways, since you seem so interested in learning how all this works (as you asked me to look it up for you, but I don't need to, since I learned all this in the few EET courses I passed handily) I'll explain why all this is to you. What a nice guy I am, huh?
Okay, lets start with CRTs. These are complicated little beasties when you get into colour, so lets start with monochrome.
The tube you are looking at right now is evacuated of all air. In the rear of it is a heating element, which causes a material in front of it to emit electrons. The amount of electrons emitted is controlled by a control grid in front of this material. This is what allows us to control the intensity, or brightness of the beam. This is controlled through voltage, and therefore is completely analog unless you choose to hook it up to a digital controller. After the beam is attenuated by the control grid, it then passes by "yokes", or electromagnetic coils in a standard CRT, or for an oscilloscope CRT, these are deflection plates. In either case, a voltage is applied to these. A higher voltage moves the electon beam away from that yoke/plate, however a lower voltage does not move it closer (this is why a TV requires at least a 4-way yoke, or 4 deflection plates). Moving the beam causes a spot on the phospor covered, lead impregnated part of the screen you see to light up (it actually excites the phosphor and causes it to emit light waves and x-rays rather than electrons). X-Rays (which are mostly of the soft form anyways) are curtailed by the lead, and the lead is grouned to remove the resulting electrical charge caused by all this electronic conversion away from the screen. Not to mention it keeps the EXTREMELY high voltage used called the "screen" from killing you. Beats me what this was about, nobody ever explained it (could that just be part of why I failed out of EET?
Now we can see if this beam is moved about the screen it will create points of light all over. P22 phospor (which is what is used in starndard computer monitors) does not instantly stop emitting light when charged and, knowing this, we can use it to our advantage and move the beam quickly enough about the screen to keep the entire screen bright.
Now, modulating the yoke and control grid we can produce a picture. NTSC combines all this into one signal (bad). Fortunately, VGA does not, and is still completely analog (and could display google bit colour, if you so desired). VGA uses separate vertical and horizontal deflection signals, and also has separate voltage controls for the different colours red, green and blue (which we're about to get to).
A shadow mask placed behind the phospor on a screen allows the three beams integrated into a colour monitor to selectively hit various coloured phosphors on a computer screen. Basically, I really don't want to go into this anymore, because again, computer monitors are NOT my expertise.
So, as you can see, I've proven CRTs are purely analog, and therefore can display an infinite range of colour (disproving your bit-based theory of CRT colour).
Now to disprove your bit-based theory of LCDs.
LCDs are far more simple than CRTs. A fluid inside an LCD can be polarized at various angles with an applied voltage. The voltage directly controls the angle, and is completely analog. A polarized lense is placed either behind or infront of the LCD. A standard LCD (such as the one in a digital watch) has a mirror behind it which light bounces from when it strikes the LCD.
When a 90 degree twist is applied to the LCD is causes the display to be totally black, because it is a completely perpendicular angle to the polarized glass in front or behind it. If enough voltage to cause a 39.37837 degree twist to be placed on the LCD element, it will show up as a shade of grey, and that shade of grey is different than one at 39.28374 degrees.
When a Red, Green, and Blue colour filter is applied to these elements, you get a colour display, at the cost of requiring three times as many pixels. The display is still analog, and can display an infinite amount of colours, only limited by the controller attached to it.
HTH!
Re:Actually, (Score:2)
>>>>>>>>
Oh come on. We played with open monitors lots of times in high-school. They're like 20-30 thousand volts. It'll give you a good shock, but it won't kill you. The real danger is that it arcs several inches, so "insulated" wires look safer than they are.
Re:Actually, (Score:2)
Well, you took the EE course and I didn't, but your explanation of LCD technology is not what I learned when I was trying to write display/graphics drivers for BeOS.
As I was led to understand, the individual elements in an LCD display are bi-stable: on or off. Shades of grey are obtained via two primary methods, both performed by the controller: dithering and duty-cycle modulation.
Dithering is what you'd expect, except that the dither pattern changes every field. There are usually four or eight dither patterns through which the controller cycles, thereby avoiding any static pattern artifacts appearing on the display.
Duty-cycle modulation is where you turn the cell on for 50% of the time, then turn it off for the other 50% to obtain a 50% grey. For a 75% grey, you turn it on for 75% of the time, and off for 25%. The rate at which you turn the cell on and off is too fast for the eye to see directly (and LCDs smear out rapid changes, anyway).
And, just to make things harder, every panel model is different. Each panel has different physical characteristics, signalling requirements, etc. Thus, you can't, for example, pull a Citizen panel out of a laptop and replace it with a Matsushita. Even assuming the electrical connections were identical (they're not), the difference in physical response characteristics would cause the image to be anywhere between ugly and invisible. This was one reason why flat panel support was so difficult under BeOS. Each panel model needs the controller software to be hand-tweaked to get the optimum quality image out of it. Exact duty cycle timings need to be experimented with; different dither patterns and pattern sequences need to be explored until the image looks best. All this hand-tooled knowledge is hard-coded in the laptop BIOS. Since BeOS couldn't call the BIOS, we had to punch the registers and hope. Much of the time it worked. But on those occasions where it didn't, we were hosed.
Anyway, that's what I learned. But, again, since I never took an EE course, I'm probably wrong.
Schwab
Re:Actually, No, they don't. (Score:2)
Leaving you with... 4096 colors per pixel.
To claim it does more is to stretch the truth. It is common to accept that when we talk about the # of bits of color, we mean per actual pixel, not sub-pixel.
To group multiple pixels together and then claim it was actually true is just BS
Hey (Score:3, Informative)
They claim that by 'color mixing' you can get more colors..
Re:Hey (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess the real problem is that it can't display 50K+ colors at the advertised resolution, since it needs to use several real pixels to make a high-color pixel.
A pathalogical example: a 1024x768x24-bit display can display 1024x768x24 or 1x1x(the total number of different permutations of 24-bit pixels on a 1024x768 display). of course, you'd have to look at the 1x1 display from a long way off for the dithering take effect.
Re:Hey (Score:1)
On the other hand, this reminds me of a old ModeX resolution trick for VGA-only boards. You could actually set the screen to 320x600 to simulate 18-bit color at 320x200. It works very well, using every 3rd line as R, G, B with 6 bits per color (64 shades of each, leaving you with 64 unused palette entries)
Re:Hey (Score:1)
Anyway, if you're telling me that my monitor really has 3 times as many pixels as I thought, then yes, you're right. Dithering gets more and more effective the higher the resolution is. But the fact is, the standard is not to call subpixels pixels. They are subpixels. If they really considered them pixels, then they should've advertised that they have 76,800 pixels and not 25,600 (160x160). But according to standard definitions of "pixel" and "resolution" they were being fraudulent.
It's like saying, yeah, this car has 600 horsepower. But our definition of horse power is that 4HP = 1 of what most people call horsepower. We have very strong horses.
Re:Hey (Score:1)
Re:Hey (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, what you say is true.. (Score:2)
My 1600x1200 laptop screen has 1600 red, 1600 green, and 1600 blue sub-pixels across.We don't call it a 4800x1200 screen, though.
So when they say it can display 16 bit color on the color LCD screen, the consumer has a right to assume that means they are using a 656 display... six bits for red, five for green, and 6 for blue (or whatever it is..). saying that you can use more pixels to get more color.. that's just bad advertising.
Re:Hey (Score:3, Insightful)
The 256-bit-per-channel limitation you describe is in the video adapter hardware, not in the monitor. And video adapters address pixels, not subpixels.
CRTs don't even have subpixels, because subpixels are addressable, and the red/green/blue subcomponents of CRT display (phosphor dots) are not addressable.
So the monitor supports an infinite number of colours. The video card supports 16.7M colours per pixel.
Yes, there is colour mixing going on. No one wants to see 16.7M shades of spectral green. Shove a magnifying glass up against your monitor, and you'll see those red, blue and green phosphor dots.
But the same thing happens with colour photographs, and printing, and pretty well anything that uses a pigment to produce different shades of colour. Everyone agrees that when the mixing below addressable resolution, it's called "a colour", and when mixing at addresable resolution, it's called "a dither pattern".
I have no problem with Palm's original mistake. They happen. But Palm's way of dealing with it has been absolutely atrocious. If they had originally advertised the device as supporting 937,936 colours, they might be justified in claiming its true colour depth was 58,621.
But no one advertises a 16-bit display as supporting 937,936 colours, because it's nonsense. The only reason Palm cares about these "colour mixing" numbers is because Palm's trying to spin this as a 10% reduction in colour depth, instead of a 94% reduction.
That's the "real problem", IMHO.
Re:Hey (Score:2)
Re:Hey (Score:1)
Uh ... no. You can make over 16 million colors for a single pixel using varying levels of red, green, and blue in that single pixel (16777216 colors, to be exact, with a 24-bit display, giving 8 bits per red, green, and blue, or 256 shades of each merged together using the color properties of light to blend a new color). Palm has 12bpp to work with for a single pixel, or 4 bits per red, green, and blue. That's 16 shades of each, for a combinatorial total of 4096 different, unique colors. Their "blending" involves dithering (if I have a block of four pixels, and set the top left and bottom right to blue, and the top right and bottom left to white, then from a far enough distance, it looks like I have a blue that's 50% lighter than normal blue ...), or using various sub-pixel techniques (if I want a brighter red, I could adjust the red subpixels next to the pixel I'm dealing with and it will look brighter, but it will also be blurrier and could sacrifice the colors in the adjacent pixels), and such (I don't know what else they could do, really). In other words, your "mixing" of red, green, and blue is different than the "mixing" they're doing.
Fuss? (Score:2)
That's like selling you a car saying it has 300HP, but in fact, only has 120.
what is your argument there, that 300HP is too much anyway, and everyone should be happy?
No. It's fraud, and it's illegal, and they are doing the right thing by offering refunds.
Re:Fuss? (Score:2)
No, it's more akin to saying it has 300HP, when they're really selling a 120HP engine that's been modified and tuned (but mostly tuned) to run at 280HP.
Class action lawsuit maddness (Score:2, Interesting)
I know it's a little off-topic but regardless of how Palm decided to handle this situation, we should all be glad that a class action lawsuit wasn't filed. In Madison County IL. there is a group called ILAW (Illinois Lawyer Abuse Watch (I think))investigating class action lawsuits and some of their findings are scary.
Verizon went through a class action lawsuit and all the participants were awarded some trivial $20 refund, or some voucher for a free month of service while the lawyers raked in millions of dollars.
These 'millions' get written off by the company and get passed to us. Not to say all Class-Action lawsuits are bad, but some are down right scary.I know off-topic a tad. Oh well.
problem with the story (Score:1)
Thats ok... (Score:5, Funny)
SimCity really worth it? (Score:1)
Acquiring SimCity for PDA without this deal is rather ridiculous. $30 for a game that you can fit on 1 floppy, compared to a regular massive PC game is sad. Sure it's smaller and you can play in class and stuff, but why not just have a Game Boy Advance? Cheaper, and you're not fooling anyone anyway.
Since I am RED-Green Colorblind (Score:3, Funny)
Forget all those Colors...I want mine RUGGEDIZED! (Score:2)
Wow.... (Score:1)
I mean, there are only 25k pixles on the thing.
Never mind that (Score:1, Offtopic)
Free SimCity!!! Awesome!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Strobing can work (Score:2)
Of course, the contrast wasn't as good or anything. It would be interesting to see comparisons between the two. Someone posted a link, but it was to geocities, and obviously it's dead now.
Does anyone have the details on how this supposed color increasing worked? I think it would be intresting to see.
Re: (Score:1)
So is this going to become the norm? (Score:3, Interesting)
And no, this is not "the way business is done," this is "false advertising." Unfortunately, false advertising is only against the law if people complain.
Re:So is this going to become the norm? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Not quite sixteen bits... (Score:1)
The bottom line is that they are quite a ways off. Now, they are saying, "well, we didn't quite give you the full 64k colors, and we're offering a refund even though we're just a few percent off." They look like they are going out of their way for people who wouldn't notice the difference between 65536 and 58621. But in fact they are trying to make sure no one calls them on the fact that they lied - big time, and can only deliver 4096 colors.
I'm feeling some hostility here (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, they lied in their marketing, that's bad. But they seem to be trying to do the honorable thing here. If the color depth is that important do you just get the refund and buy yourself a Handspring.
But lets work the numbers here: A 160x160 pixel screen has 25600 pixels total. The 12 bits per pixel can only display 4096 unique colors. This means that in the worst case scenario, every color will have to be spread across 6.25 pixels. This doesn't seem all that bad to me. In fact it sounds like just the sort of design tradeoff I might have made. Going all the way up to 65536 unique colors is kind of a waste since you'll never be able to get all of those on the screen at once.
Of course Palm should have advertised it as a 12bit screen right from the start, but I'm not ready to hang them out to dry for this. On the contrary, offering Sim City (which is still a fine game, despite what the vitriol filled posts on here might say) seems like a nice gesture to me. Palm certainly could have done worse.
Does anybody remember IOmega and the Click of Death? Years in lawsuits that just make the scum sucking lawyers richer and richer and what do we get? A coupon from IOmega for some paltry sum off of our next purchase of an IOmega product, long after most of us had swarn off IOmega forever. Would you guys have preferred that?
Re:I'm feeling some hostility here (Score:4, Insightful)
The 12bit colour isn't a PALLET of 16.7 million (or 65K) with only 4096 displayed at a time.
It's only 4096 colours total. You don't get to choose which colours are in the pallet.
You get 16 shades of red, 16 shades of green and 16 shades of blue. You get to mix them as well, but thats it.
So, yeah, even though there are only 25,600 pixels on the screen you could still display an image, via scrolling with the full 65K colours. Now your left we fudge tricks to get the same colour range.
I think this move by Palm is a good move though.
Many people are probably more than happy with the display.
Re:I'm feeling some hostility here (Score:2)
>>>>>>>>
I have no idea what kind of LSD induced images you're looking at, but the real problem is full-color images use lots of one shade, not a little bit of lots of shades. Thus, worst case, you have something like a gradient, with the 16! values of each shade spread out over 10 pixels. Not a good tradeoff for a machine that's supposed to view photos and whatnot. And p0rn will look terrible with all the skin-tones all stratified like that!
I wonder what palm is going to achieve with this.. (Score:1)
Face it: The palm m130 is a cheap 160x160 pixels handheld. 16bit colout on a 160x160 cheap screen is _not_ that much different than a 12bit colour screen. What are you going to do? Run photoshop on your palm or show your vacation pictures to others on a frikin 160x160 screen?
That being said, I own an m130 and have been insanely pleased with it. However, this offer puts me into temptation.. Do i return the m130 and use the money (+£100) to buy the much sexier m515? I might be a righteous person and not do it. But others?
This might be an economical disaster for palm...
Re:I wonder what palm is going to achieve with thi (Score:2)
Tech plummets in value so fast, I would return the m130 and reinvest in something newer.
Re:I wonder what palm is going to achieve with thi (Score:2)
That being said, I have an m130 and don't care about the refund. I don't use my palm to view images, no matter how many colors it could display, the 160x160 restriction is too much to deal with. Even with a 320x320 display, images don't look good enough.
58,621 colors? (Score:4, Insightful)
-
Re:58,621 colors? (Score:2)
Re:58,621 colors? (Score:2)
-
Re:58,621 colors? (Score:2)
4096 is not 58,621 (Score:3, Informative)
Lets be accurate here. It can only display 4096 colors. It's a 12 bit color display, not 16. However Palm marketing wants to twist things, it does not serve the user to repeat marketing hype. They sold this thing as a 16 bit display and it was a 12 bit display. Matters a lot if you want to view photos or color images, and that's the reason many paid for a color toy. The problem is more serious than the "only 58,621 colors as contrasted to 64k" marketing hype.
Business ethic (Score:2)
zerg (Score:2)
How do you pull your company out of its rut?
For the record (Score:2)
they're doing the right thing (Score:5, Interesting)
This is going to cost them tons of money, but unlike the actions other companies, Palm may have just earned my trust.
I'm very pleased as a Palm customer (Score:2)
I purchased a refurbished Palm Vx. The device kept losing its calibration which required me to re-run the digitizer. Sometimes it wasn't reachable and required a hard reset. Called Palm, gave them my S/N, a replacement arrived in the mail.
Painless and awesome. Thanks guys.
Re:giggle (Score:2)
Signed,
CmdrTaco
Re:My only question... (Score:2)
Re:Wheres the link?? (Score:2)