[Tony_Offends_U]

I've always wondered why WP8 doesn't have support for the qHD resolution. Would probably look pretty damn decent on those low-end phones supporting the old WP7 res.

[Laura Knotek]

I'm not familiar with qHD resolution. Would you be able to elaborate further?

[WanderingTraveler]

I'm not familiar with qHD resolution. Would you be able to elaborate further?

540*960 pixel resolution.

qHD means quarter-HD, as these displays have only a fourth of the pixels as Full HD.

[WanderingTraveler]

I've always wondered why WP8 doesn't have support for the qHD resolution. Would probably look pretty damn decent on those low-end phones supporting the old WP7 res.

It isn't really much different from the WVGA resolution. In addition, it would take much more effort than what it is worth to switch to qHD for the lower-end phones.

In the end, WVGA support was preferred.

[anon5997296]

What if WVGA was dropped since the beginning and qHD was used on 520, 620 and 720?? Would be better I guess.

[Cheewii Poon]

Actually if you search Lumia 635/630 leaked screenshots from evleaks showing the new onscreen navigation buttons, the screenshots are 480x854 (FWVGA) which is slightly better than the existing WVGA screens, but not qHD. But there is a slight chance that the screenshot might be scaled down from a higher resolution qHD, since both FWVGA and qHD are 16:9 while the current WVGA is 5:3.

[stanci]

540*960 pixel resolution.

qHD means quarter-HD, as these displays have only a fourth of the pixels as Full HD.

[Microsoftjunkie]

Actually if you search Lumia 635/630 leaked screenshots from evleaks showing the new onscreen navigation buttons, the screenshots are 480x854 (FWVGA) which is slightly better than the existing WVGA screens, but not qHD. But there is a slight chance that the screenshot might be scaled down from a higher resolution qHD, since both FWVGA and qHD are 16:9 while the current WVGA is 5:3.

It isn't slightly better, at least not in future wps. That extra 54 pixels is just for on screen buttons. There is no difference viewing on that resolution, from the original 480x800

[Cheewii Poon]

It isn't slightly better, at least not in future wps. That extra 54 pixels is just for on screen buttons. There is no difference viewing on that resolution, from the original 480x800

It actually should be ever so slightly better, I've looked at the screenshot and if it's legitimate, the on screen buttons take up about 51 pixels. Also I imagine those controls would hide away when watching videos or playing games, if not it would be a huge fail.

[manicottiK]

It actually should be ever so slightly better, I've looked at the screenshot and if it's legitimate, the on screen buttons take up about 51 pixels. Also I imagine those controls would hide away when watching videos or playing games, if not it would be a huge fail.

We're all guessing, but I'd put my money on what Microsoftjunkie said. Those extra pixels are solely for the OS buttons and they would always show. I believe this because it would mean no changes for developers (the usable screen remains 800x480) and it becomes cheaper and easier for manufacturers to use the same hardware for different operating systems since there's no need for a variable number of dedicated buttons with specific iconography. The goal of this idea has allegedly been to attract manufacturers of low-end handsets, not to give users a few more pixels.

[anon5997296]

Well, they should allow the buttons to be hidden while watching videos then people will be able to enjoy 16:9 videos withot black bars, that would be an advantage.. No??

[Cheewii Poon]

exactly my point.