Screen spec for 7100t and 7290

[First Forum]

I have a 7230 that fell and the screen is partially damaged. Want to upgrade to to either 7290 or 7100t. Can someone pls tell me what the actual length and width of the 7100t screen is? Also same specs for 7290 if it isn't the same screen size as 7230.

Thanks!

P.s. I am a heavy e-mail user.

[mrogers]

According to PDAstreet (http://www.pdastreet.com/articles/2005/2/2005-2-3-Review-BlackBerry-71002-print.html), the 7100's screen resolution is 240x260.

According to RIM, the 7290's resolution is 240x160; however, I dispute that because whenever I make a 240-pixel wide image and download it to my 7290, there's white space on the sides. I have to make it 260px to fill the space.

Edit: and if you're a heavy email user, I'd definitely stick with the 7290 over the 7100.

[First Forum]

Thanks v much mrogers. At the risk of sounding a total moron on these matters (which I am), what I was really looking for was measurements in inches or cm. Or is that completely the wrong way to look at it?

What does 240 pixels horizontal translate into? I saw a post that said that as the 7100t and 7290 both have 240 pixels horizontally they should display the same amount of text - just smaller text for the 7100t as it is narrower.

Yes, I am leaning heavily toward the 7290. That predictive text thing in the 7100t also sounds messy. The only problem with 7290 is that it is a bit awkward to handle given width (based on my 7230 experience). But I guess that is the trade off for its more e-mail friendliness. Thanks again.

[mrogers]

Inches and cm is more or less the wrong way to look at it in these cases. What really matters is the resolution of the screen. That determines how much info can be displayed on the screen to a greater degree than the physical size. However, since you have (had) a 7230, that is the same physical screen size as the 7290, so you should be familiar with that. Here's a picture from ScoobyDoo's review of the 7100t:

http://www.blackberryforums.com/reviews/PICT0010.JPG

A pixel is the smallest unit of display on a screen. If you look really, really close at your Blackberry screen or your computer monitor (don't hurt your eyes), you'll see tiny little squares. Each square is a pixel. Each pixel can display one color. So you'll need a minimum number of pixels to display a character or icon or whatever. Pixel resolution really doesn't mean much as far as phyical dimensions. Take the Dell Axim Pocket PCs for example. You can get an Axim X50 with a standard 240x320 pixel resolution screen (which is what post PDAs are), or you can get the X50v with the high-resolution 480x640 screen. That's exactly TWICE the number of pixels in each direction (so four times as many pixels overall) all crammed into the exact same physical dimensions as the lower-resolution screen. So the more pixels you have per inch, the sharper your image is going to be.

Given all that, like I said I don't really think the dimensions for the 7290 screen on RIM's web site is correct--as hard as it is to believe they screwed that up and it's still on there, I'm sticking by that. I mean, first there's the evidence of the photos I've loaded onto it--the ones that are 240px wide just don't fill the whole width of the screen. Second, look at the photo of the 7290 next to the 7100t. According to RIM's specs, the two have the same pixel width, and even accounting for variations in pixel density (like I've already explained), they just look to far different. I actually think the 7290's width is 260px.

I hope all that helps.

[First Forum]

mrogers,
I knew all that!!! Seriously though, thanks very much, things are much clearer now. Appreciate the detailed info and patience.
thanks again.