[nycrare]

The black PDN is finally announced. Since many of us still haven't seen/played one physically, would you prefer a black one based on the current reviews or you'd still hold on to the hacked white model? I'm a bit confused at the moment. I do like the matte screen for one thing. But I'm also wondering if it will be as "versatile" as my white PDN... Any thoughts?

 

[jackbox]

White as the Black one has not been hacked and you cannot add any apps or change it in any way. It is just an ereader with bad music player and bad video player.

 

[geebekazoo]

I just hacked a 2nd white unit for my wife, before they become unobtanium!

 

[clockworx]

I would almost be willing to guarantee the black one will be hackable. There's just way too many ways around whatever they did, and PD's resources aren't even as dedicated to locking down the device as say....Motorola/HTC/etc.

 

[lawman]

I agree with clockworx. The lack of internal upgradability and the smaller battery lead me to say I don't see any good reason to buy the black at this point. Lighter? please...

 

[tadroid]

I waited for the black PDN review before deciding to go to Kohl's today and buy another white Novel. Several reasons for white over black:[list type=decimal][*]Mediocre black Novel review[*]Current availability of the white Novel[*]Current hackability of the white Novel[*]Known build quality of the white Novel[*]Last day for Kohl's sale price/MIR on the white Novel ($174.99 + $15 MIR)[*]Last day for a 30% off total purchase Kohl's coupon[*]Kohl's cash of $10 for every $50 spent started today[/LIST]All the stars just seemed to align today to provide me with an opportunity - after the MIR and Kolh's cash - to make my white PDN price equivalent to $77.49 (+ tax on the before-MIR-price for the PDN), which is an opportunity unlikely to be equaled for a while on the black Novel once it is actually available in stores.Note: If you do the math, you'll come up with $87.49 + tax on the before-MIR-price, but since I bought a few other needed items to both get the 30% discount on them that expired today, and to push my total purchase to just over $150, I got an extra $10 of Kohl's cash ($30 vs $20). Since I wouldn't have gone there today if I wasn't buying the PDN, I'm counting the extra $10 Kohl's cash towards the PDN price discount - not a totally defensible position, I know, but one I choose to take.

 

[lawman]

I'm settling in on the idea that I need to start looking for what replaces the PDN for me. The source code issue is getting old, and if the MIR ends and the price goes up significantly... it puts the pdn on par with some capable competition. Still at $170, 30% off, it's ... $130 or so? The best bang for your buck, period.

 

[clockworx]

One of the problems is most of the upcoming stuff is priced 2-3x as much (assuming you ended up getting the PDN for around $100). All big name companies seem to want to start their prices at at least $400. The Cruz at $299 seems like the best option, except I kind of like 800x600 res (no idea why their cheaper device has higher res).

 

[lawman]

because they buy hundreds of thousands of lcds from their mfr - they make digital frames, remember?

 

[clockworx]

No, the $199 Cruz is 800x600, while the $299 is 800x480. (Granted there's other things to cause price differences, but it seems weird to have lower res on the more expensive device)

 

[bugeyed]

It is a matter of the aspect ratio of the screen. 800:600 is 4:3 & 800:480 is 16:9. I prefer 4:3 for the most part.

 

[gortyargen]

[quote name='clockworx;39648]No' date=' the $199 Cruz is 800x600, while the $299 is 800x480. (Granted there's other things to cause price differences, but it seems weird to have lower res on the more expensive device)[/QUOTE'] I thought the tablet had a capacitance screen which was one of the reasons it was more expensive. Not sure why 100 bucks more expensive though

 

[clockworx]

I thought the tablet had a capacitance screen which was one of the reasons it was more expensive. Not sure why 100 bucks more expensive though

The tablet is definitely justified in being more expensive. Better screen, more storage, more RAM I think(?, offhand). It's just funny that in that area the $199 is theoretically superior. At least it would be nice if they offered an 800x600 option on the $299 one.

 

[docfreed]

Yes, the tablet claims 512 Mb, and includes an 8 Gb Micro SD Card, has "n" WiFi and 4 Gb internal storage.

 

[bugeyed]

[quote name='clockworx;39691]The tablet is definitely justified in being more expensive. Better screen' date=' more storage, more RAM I think(?, offhand). It's just funny that in that area the $199 is theoretically superior. At least it would be nice if they offered an 800x600 option on the $299 one.[/QUOTE'] It's the native resolution of a 4:3 screen VS a 16:9 screen! 800x600 is not higher resolution, it just has more pixels in the short dimension. It is the same, or close, pixel density. 800x600 & 800x480 are more accurately called pixel dimension instead of resolution.

 

[clockworx]

Display resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"The display resolution of a digital television or display device is the number of distinct pixels in each dimension that can be displayed."So yes, it is a higher resolution (as in "display resolution"). No one uses resolution to talk about displays that way (even if it is more technically correct to do so)

 

[bugeyed]

"The display resolution of a digital television or display device is the number of distinct pixels in each dimension that can be displayed."So yes, it is a higher resolution (as in "display resolution"). No one uses resolution to talk about displays that way.

The way I understand it, the quality of the displayed image is the same in either case. The 800x600 image is bigger, but has no more picture detain than the smaller 800x480 image. Pixel dimensions is not the same as "resolution". Resolution has more to do with pixels per inch on a fixed pixel display. I think. I am starting to get confused now.

 

[HaTaX]

The quality of the image is really dependent on how many pixels are in a square inch, called PPI. In the old days of CRT monitors this was referred to as dot pitch. You may have a screen capable of displaying 800x480 and another at 800x600. If the physical dimensions of the screens were identical the PPI would be higher on the 800x600 screen. To make this idea really obvious think of taking an 800x600 screen with a diagonal dimension of 30 inches. You'd be able to set a toothpick between the pixels at that size!!

 

[clockworx]

Yeah, image quality is more of a PPI issue. Basically, think if you have a web page (or image)that is formatted to fit perfectly to 800x600 size. On an 800x600 screen, you'll be able to see all of it at once. On a 800x480 screen, you'll have to scroll up and down a bit to see the whole thing.This is independent of PPI, as you can have enormous or tiny pixels.

 

[bugeyed]

That's true enough. The reason I wanted to clarify the term "resolution" in this discussion was because a couple of people here talked like 800x600 was "superior" to 800x480.