Develop Bugs

If WP7 only supports 480×800 WVGA or 480×320 HVGA

Then isn't that blocking manufacturers from competing with iPhone 4's 960x640 'Retina Display' straight from the get go?
I know they will no doubt be able to make some cracking looking screens at that resolution but it is a bit disheartening to know that it can never meet the resolution of the iPhone, and I imagine by the end of the year there will be several competing Android devices that have matched that resolution too.
Do you think Microsoft will stick to this requirement?

Seems like Microsoft wants to make sure all devices run perfect at launch in hopes of rave reviews for WP7 so all the limitations. I suspect them to open it up very quickly after launch so it doesn't get left behind.

I'd rather them hang on for a bit to be honest. The only reason the iPhone's new screen is that resolution is simply because its double the last one. So they can easily resize content for the screen. It's only 10-15% higher pixel density than phones we've already got, so not that big of an improvement, unless you're comparing it to the other iPhones of course.
Might as well wait a year or so and go for 1280x720. Better to standardise the platform on a resolution like that every couple of years than to have lots of inbetween resolutions competing and wasting developer resources.

Considering the screen sizes we are talking about, does anything north of 480×800 really make that much of a difference to the naked eye?

lordcanti86 said:
Considering the screen sizes we are talking about, does anything north of 480×800 really make that much of a difference to the naked eye?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No.
The term 'retina display' is bull, in reality you would have to hold the iPhone 18 inches from your face to reach the limits of your eyes.
Which brings me to the main point: If you have a bigger display, you can hold it farther from your eyes and have the same effect.
940 or 800 pixels? It hardly matters. What matters more is the actual size of the screen and any WP7 device with a 3.7" or 4" screen at WVGA is to be preferred to the iPhone's too small 3.4" screen.

I believe the 480x800 was a minimum spec, and that the other would be an exception to the rule for some other devices.

480x800 is fine, they need to get rid of this HVGA crap though.

vangrieg said:
480x800 is fine, they need to get rid of this HVGA crap though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HVGA is good if you need a compact device, not everyone wants a large device, some want's it slim and compact.
I belive that it will not make a big difference to have it as 800x480 or 960x640 (it would matter if the screen was big, but in the iphone case it wouldn't).
The usage of this resolution is pure technical and i really respect this move. now the only thing they need to do to maintain the apps compatability of the old iPhone is to render the apps 2 times larger on both axis (x,y) so if you have an image that is 20 pixels height and 50 pixels width (20x50)it would be (40x100), notice this will not affect the aspect ratio nor will result in a distortion or pixelating the image (the same screen size but having more pixels).
Now if you come to the real world, i will not matter for the naked eye, i would love to see this screen compared to the WVGA i have on my HD2. i doubt that there will be a noticable difference.
Pure physics say that the Naked Human Eye at a distance of 30cm can see objects that are 0.1mm, any object smaller (or objects that have a distance of 0.1mm or less will appear as 1 object, so this returns us to the "a mere 78 micrometers" (0.078mm) means that you can notice that the pixel itself is a an object that cannot be seen by the naked eye easily, that's why each pixel for us will be represented as almost 1.5 pixels). now i'm not saying that it is the same, not at all. it makes difference from the old screen they were using, but the same result we would get if they made a bit lower resolution screens (0.1mm).
Anyhow, for that particular screen size, the resolution usage is more a technical point of view than a real function point of you. you will enjoy the new screen resolution but you will not see all the pixels

I have to agree with everyone above me. While yes, things will look crispier on that iPhone screen, you have to remember also that they're not taking advantage of that screen estate... As someone above me stated, the icons won't be smaller for you to fit more info on the screens, the icons will have the same size, but will look sharper.
Is it worth it? Don't know... 960x640 is a lot. But can you see the difference to our 800x480? Sorry, but if you do, you should be in a secret american bunker.
And don't forget! iPhone's screen is 4:3 as ours are 16:9 (roughly). Should you put the iPhone's screen in 16:9 form, it would be 960x540... So the improvement isn't that great... (And i'm not mentionning that most sites are still being written to fit a 800x600 pc screen, so having a 800x480 hold in landscape will render the site 100% accurately... in theory that is xD)

Sure it looks like the iPhone will have a great resolution but at 3.5" screen size it doesn't make it and where near what I'd be looking for. I want a bigger screen and I've found the pixel density of 800x480 is good enough to make everything look crisp. Maybe MS will add 1600x960 and 960x640 to there list of supported resolutions seems how that just doubling what they currently have as standards. Ok maybe 1600x960 is a bit much but hey it can happen.

NoWorthWhile said:
I have to agree with everyone above me. While yes, things will look crispier on that iPhone screen, you have to remember also that they're not taking advantage of that screen estate... As someone above me stated, the icons won't be smaller for you to fit more info on the screens, the icons will have the same size, but will look sharper.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good point. If you have a very high res (960*640) screen but are limited to the same screen proportions as a very low res screen (480*320) you've lost a lot of the advantage.
Is it worth it? Don't know... 960x640 is a lot. But can you see the difference to our 800x480? Sorry, but if you do, you should be in a secret american bunker.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Partly agreed. If they get cleartype to work properly (both portrait and landscape, and on OLED screens) then 800*480 is good for images and text.
I'm all for high res, but 800*480 is good, plus OLED is the way forward and hasn't reached full 800*480 resolution yet.
I think the foundational technologies (surrounding silverlight) enable resolution-independence very easily and may even enforce it, so moving to any widescreen resolution should be easy in future, with only the potential problem of bitmap pixellation.

I think we're reaching a point where the resolution in no longer important.
We all remember a couple of years ago when we "drool" about having vga resolution phone.
Now that the 800x480 are the standard and the 960x640 are becoming a standard also, all resolutions beyond this point becomes meaningless as we, humans, cannot see the difference in a standard size phone terminal.

Won't more pixels on the screen though lead to better touch perfomance?

ROCOAFZ said:
Won't more pixels on the screen though lead to better touch perfomance?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What does performance have to do with pixel resolution??
The digitalizer (that plastic layer above the LCD) takes care of the touch input, not the LCD itself.

rogeriopcf said:
What does performance have to do with pixel resolution??
The digitalizer (that plastic layer above the LCD) takes care of the touch input, not the LCD itself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also, more pixels on the screen = more pixels to render = slower performance. For example, a lot of the XNA games made will probably be 320x480 and automatically scaled up for performance reasons.

As far as I remember, Da_G said they are working hard on completing DPI_262, which opens new resolutions, like 1280x720 and so on .
I think that even Hummingbird from Samsung, which is way faster (in GPU even more) than Qualcomm Snapdragon, will perform quite well with those resolutions. And when they come, we will have even better CPUs and GPUs.

lordcanti86 said:
Considering the screen sizes we are talking about, does anything north of 480×800 really make that much of a difference to the naked eye?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It depends on the size of the screen and the viewing distance, but in general, yes. There's a reason why printers don't print at 300 dots per inch any more - it's because the eye can easily detect a difference between 300 pixels per inch and 600. In fact, even going from 600dpi to 1200 makes a visible difference sometimes.
Or, to look at it another way, is there a visible difference when you switch ClearType on and off? ClearType multiplies the resolution by three on one axis. If you can see a difference then the original resolution is comfortably below the finest your eye can resolve.

I'd focus more on screen clairity, color depth/contrast/brightness, ect. before trying to cram more pixels into a sub 5" screen. How about a nice OLED? ...I'd rather have this as compared to more dpi.

Retina Display + WP7?

This is one of the things that always comes up to my mind when I'm using my Samaung Focus and iPhone 4, what if my Samsung Focus had a Retina Display?
Or if iPhone 4 had three buttons and WP7

If the Samsung Focus had a retina display it would have a higher screen resolution.

please, lets stop using merchandising bs terms, its just a higher res screen, its not a new technology, its just a buzz word.
i have a samsung focus too, and i would reall really like it to have a higher res screen and RGB configuration, but not at the cost of changing from SAMOLED to IPS

Man, my focus with a lousy 3.5" screen would be terrible. What I want is WP7 on one of those new 4.5" super amoled + displays they're gonna put on that android phone they're making. That'd be the cheese, right there.

800*480 OLED with normal sub-pixels is good for phone sizes.
Text is most important and with normal subpixels you can turn on cleartype and have a boost in effective resolution. At 800*480 I think it's good for both images and text.
Pentile has lower actual resolution and doesn't have OS sub-pixel support.

revrak said:
please, lets stop using merchandising bs terms, its just a higher res screen, its not a new technology, its just a buzz word.
i have a samsung focus too, and i would reall really like it to have a higher res screen and RGB configuration, but not at the cost of changing from SAMOLED to IPS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a bit more than a higher res screen. It is LCD tech but it has a viewing angle that is as good as OLED. There is no loss of detail or washout at angles...extreme angles.

The thing though, is that I've never had a situation where I was using my phone and needed those types of viewing angles. As long as the phone is readable from a 100-120 degree viewing angle is seems like it's good enough for me.
The iPhone's viewing angles are good, but the screen size IMO worked against it for situations where the viewing angles would be a saver (showing stuff on your phone to others).
Also, the iPhone is still not that great when viewing it in direct sunlight, although it is better than some other LCD panels.
The Pixel Density is the biggest thing about the screen. It makes text, pictures, and even video look better than on lots of other lower-res phones...

Yeah, the screen size is on the smallish side. I wish Apple would consider a 4.3 being the minimum size. But I'm finding other things about the iPhone screen (the whole screen - LCD and plate) that really make up for size deficiencies. I think Apple is using the Oleo-phobic tech on the iPhone because it is so much easier to move your finger across it than on other displays. I have Fruit Ninja on both my iPhone and HD7 and slashing the fruit is painless on the iPhone. Slashing the fruit on my HD7 is a bit of a chore because the finger want to adhere to the surface...like the squeak you get when running a squeegee over a clean pane of glass. The touch response seems to be a bit more accurate on the iPhone, too. But that is likely due to the coding of the game and nothing to do with the HD7's tech.
I think MS just simply ported FN to WP7 without even optimizing it because the display is squished rather than having the proper aspect ratio (a circle being oblong...like a football...rather than a true circle).

MartyLK said:
It's a bit more than a higher res screen. It is LCD tech but it has a viewing angle that is as good as OLED. There is no loss of detail or washout at angles...extreme angles.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are just talking about IPS panel.
iPhone4 and iPad do use IPS, but iPod Touch 4 does not have IPS. However Apple still call it "retina" display, so the term "retina" just means the 960X640 resolution.

amtrakcn said:
You are just talking about IPS panel.
iPhone4 and iPad do use IPS, but iPod Touch 4 does not have IPS. However Apple still call it "retina" display, so the term "retina" just means the 960X640 resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, it is IPS LCD, which gives the best viewing angle among LCDs. But the main thing with the "Retina display" is the pixel density. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia explaining the iPhone 4's display:
"The display of the iPhone 4 is designed by Apple and is manufactured by LG. It features an LED backlit TFT LCD capacitive touchscreen with a pixel density of 326 pixels per inch (ppi) on a 3.5 in (8.9 cm) (diagonally measured), 960×640 display. Each pixel is 78 micrometres in width. The display has a contrast ratio of 800:1. The screen is marketed by Apple as the "Retina Display", based on the assertion that a display of approximately 300 ppi at a distance of 12 inches (305 mm) from one's eye is the maximum amount of detail that the human retina can process.[35] With the iPhone expected to be used at a distance of about 12 inches from the eyes, a higher resolution would allegedly have no effect on the image's apparent quality as the maximum potential of the human eye has already been met. This claim has been disputed. Raymond Soneira, president of DisplayMate Technologies, said in an interview with Wired Magazine, that the claims by Jobs are something of an exaggeration: "It is reasonably close to being a perfect display, but Steve pushed it a little too far." Soneira stated that the resolution of the human retina is higher than claimed by Apple, working out to 477 ppi at 12 inches (305 mm) from the eyes.[36]
However, Phil Plait, author of Bad Astronomy, whose career includes a collaboration with NASA regarding the camera on the Hubble Space Telescope, responded to the criticism by stating that "if you have [better than 20/20] eyesight, then at one foot away the iPhone 4’s pixels are resolved. The picture will look pixellated. If you have average eyesight, the picture will look just fine.

S Amoled plus anyone?

domineus said:
S Amoled plus anyone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the only difference is that they have RGB instead of pentile right?
if that's the case, i would like to have one of those

revrak said:
the only difference is that they have RGB instead of pentile right?
if that's the case, i would like to have one of those
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hang out for the new organic display tech. It sounds like each dot can be any color, rather than having each pixel made up of red, green, blue separate dots. If this is the case, the definition will shoot through the roof.
http://www.dailytech.com/New+Lightemitting+Material+May+Usher+in+Era+of+Cheap+OLEDs/article20915.htm

MartyLK said:
I wish Apple would consider a 4.3 being the minimum size.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Such a screen size would be appropriate only if they change drastically their UI. Just think where usually are the main navigation controls on the iPhone - on the upper side of the screen. I am struggling to navigate comfortably with one hand on 3.5”, cannot imagine how can do that on bigger size. So much for the vaunted apple UI…

What is the highest resolution that WP7 supports? It seems strange that even Samsung do not want to increase the pixels on their new models announced at MWC. I feel WVGA is too 'basic' and not as pin sharp.

amtrakcn said:
You are just talking about IPS panel.
iPhone4 and iPad do use IPS, but iPod Touch 4 does not have IPS. However Apple still call it "retina" display, so the term "retina" just means the 960X640 resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure, it's all about the pixels. Steve also mentioned that the limit for what the human eye can se is 300ppi. Therefore, we already have a bunch of "retina"displays around, and also have had for years. Among them, The Sony Ericsson Xperia X1 from 2007 had a ppi of 320, if I remember correctly. Toshiba had an device many years ago with ppi 311.

Halle said:
Sure, it's all about the pixels. Steve also mentioned that the limit for what the human eye can se is 300ppi. Therefore, we already have a bunch of "retina"displays around, and also have had for years. Among them, The Sony Ericsson Xperia X1 from 2007 had a ppi of 320, if I remember correctly. Toshiba had an device many years ago with ppi 311.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The iPhone 4 has a pixel density of 326ppi on a screen size of 3.5".

MartyLK said:
The iPhone 4 has a pixel density of 326ppi on a screen size of 3.5".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
when talking about density, the screen size does not matter.

Halle said:
Sure, it's all about the pixels. Steve also mentioned that the limit for what the human eye can se is 300ppi. Therefore, we already have a bunch of "retina"displays around, and also have had for years. Among them, The Sony Ericsson Xperia X1 from 2007 had a ppi of 320, if I remember correctly. Toshiba had an device many years ago with ppi 311.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
was the toshiba device the e900 series? i believe it was a 3.2 WVGA screen, so it had a high pixel density on a mere 3.2 inch screen. Correct me if i'm wrong.

revrak said:
when talking about density, the screen size does not matter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right, it doesn't matter.

Increase pixel density on future models?

With 330 ppi already set, do you think they will increase the ppi in the future.
I mean, we have reached "retina display", so what s the point to increase the ppi further ?
I see the iPads have around 260ppi, does it mean nexus will always have a better ppi than apple?
What do you think?

swisstourist said:
With 330 ppi already set, do you think they will increase the ppi in the future.
I mean, we have reached "retina display", so what s the point to increase the ppi further ?
I see the iPads have around 260ppi, does it mean nexus will always have a better ppi than apple?
What do you think?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
of course future device will have better hardware so better display more pixel, 4k and etc
but Apple... however compatible software needs for larger screen with more density and iOS not support it so far But they can use so it seems Apples policy is not to use so high-end device !!!

x102x96x said:
of course future device will have better hardware so better display more pixel, 4k and etc
but Apple... however compatible software needs for larger screen with more density and iOS not support it so far But they can use so it seems Apples policy is not to use so high-end device !!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At first, sorry for my bad English.
There is NO SENSE AT ALL to increase the RESOLUTION of the display to more than 360-400 pixels per inch, for it would be a waste of hardware and resources. I say this because the human eye can resolve about 350 points per inch, only few can resolve about 400, and no one on Earth can resolve more than this. So, why a manufacturer would spend effort, time, money and hardware to make something that "is there, but can not be seen"? Forget about it.
Of course, I capsized RESOLUTION because there is a difference between resolution and screen size. Screen size, measured by the number of pixels on the x and y axis, is absolute, so it doesn't matter how big or tiny the pixels are. If I say I have a screen with, say, 4000 pixels wide, one can NOT figure out how big it is, or how crispy and beautiful are the images rendered on it, because these qualities are defined not by the number of pixels, but by the RESOLUTION instead, that is not an absolute measure, but a relative: it is a ratio between the amount of pixels and the real size (in inches, or milimeters, or whatever other measure unit used) of the screen. So, a photoghraph shown on a tiny (4") screen with 800 pixles wide can look way better than, say, if shown on a huge screen with 2000 pixels whide, but with 32" - and you need to put on the equation the DISTANCE you are from the screen. It is a complicated matter, it involves physics (optic) concepts to explain it, but you can think of it this way: your eye can tell apart two lines if they are far enough from each other, and if they are big enough. So, if a screen with high resolution (with a great number of pixels condensed in a tiny area) shows two lines that are only one pixel apart from each other, depending on the screen size and on the distance you are from the screen, your eyes can not see the two lines, but just one line instead. That's because your eye is not capable to see them as they are "printed".
To put it short: We will NEVER have a USEFULL screen with more than 400 pixels per inch. Anything more than this will be an unjustifiable waste of money and hardware. It would be the same as creating a headphone that can reproduce sounds beyond 30000 hertz or above 10 hertz - it would be useless, as our human ears can only hear sound frequences that are between the range of 20 and 25000 hz.
Sorry for the long, boring text...

This is what I m talking about.
Would be wiser to have longer battery life or faster processor than just more pixel that nobody can notice.
This is why apple stick on 260ppi

swisstourist said:
This is what I m talking about.
Would be wiser to have longer battery life or faster processor than just more pixel that nobody can notice.
This is why apple stick on 260ppi
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And again a useless Nexus/Apple comparison thread from you. Wow.
Just buy the Mini and be done with it. That is, if you don't already have one.

Are you a bat ? A human can be happy to be able to hear about 15-16kHz. If you´re one of the guys who likes to go to loud concerts very often, you can be happy if you can still hear frequencies around 10kHz
Well, about the higher resolution, it depends on the screen size. I guess 1920x1200 is good enough for a 7" Tab, you have to look very close in order to spot a pixel :angel:
piduca2011 said:
At first, sorry for my bad English.
...
To put it short: We will NEVER have a USEFULL screen with more than 400 pixels per inch. Anything more than this will be an unjustifiable waste of money and hardware. It would be the same as creating a headphone that can reproduce sounds beyond 30000 hertz or above 10 hertz - it would be useless, as our human ears can only hear sound frequences that are between the range of 20 and 25000 hz.
Sorry for the long, boring text...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Pfeffernuss said:
And again a useless Nexus/Apple comparison thread from you. Wow.
Just buy the Mini and be done with it. That is, if you don't already have one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What s wrong with you.?
I make reference to Apple, could be anything else like Samsung.

screen quality

Is there a reason the screen looks so bad in certain apps. I have used facebook, ebay, and other shopping apps and the images displayed look very bad, so bad that I want to get rid of the pro 8.4. I returned the 12.2 because I thought it was stretching the images and that was why the images were the way they were, but I have the same issue with the 8.4. I bought both at the same time. Why do the images not look crisp, it has plenty of resolution to output nice images. My ipad mini is far superior to this tablet so far in terms of image quality. I'm considering returning this one too and giving up on android tablets all together.

Anyone?
Open facebook on a ipad,, then open it on the pro...any difference, significant.
Open ebay on a ipad, then open it on the pro...any difference, significant.
Why?
Yet, on my phone, note 2, all looks great.

Not certain, and I don't have my 8.4 with me at the moment.
But my guess is that the Android Facebook, eBay apps you refer to are at a lower resolution than the iPad version. If the app is at a lower resolution, it doesn't matter what res the screen is. Like when you watch a standard definition TV program on an HD television, it looks like crap. On the Note 2, this will look fine as the pixel density is much lower. On the iPad, its easier for app developers to tailor the apps for the screen resolution, since there are only a few different iPad screen resolutions.
So if this is true, its not the fault of the device. Part of the issue may be the Android hardware "fragmentation" that is so often complained about. Or just the laziness on part of the app developers. The apps will probably be updated to a higher resolution, as resolution for Android devices increases across the board. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
There are lots of pros and cons to being on iPad versus Android. And some of those differenes are going to be more or less relevant to you as an individual. I'd weight the benefits in their entirety (as they apply to you), not just screen resolution on a few isolated apps. If iPad is better for you looking at the big picture, then by all means go that route. But otherwise, stick with Android.

Excellent point. Thank u.
Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk

Another reason some images might look bad is because the tablet is such high resolution and has such a good quality display you can notice more JPEG compression on images and other minor defects in webpages ..etc since thats what high quality displays are supposed to do, reveal as much detail as possible, as other displays / might blur or distort the image because of the lower resolution / poor LCD density or add dithering, not to mention some displays aren't SRGB and might make the display more blue or over saturate while they might look better the colors are usually wrong.
I personally own the ipad mini retina model and I find the Samsung tab pro 8.4 has a better display, though the ipad is nice too from a visual standpoint, I don't use facebook but the ebay app, I don't see anything wrong with it they look the same on both the ipad and samsung except the samsung shows more content as it's a widescreen tablet (16:10) where the Ipad is 4:3 (square).
for example
Ipad mini retina (specs of my ipad)
2048 x 1536 = (4:3 QXGA)
Samsung tab pro 8.4
1600 x 2560 = (16:10 WQXGA )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vector_Video_Standards2.svg
^ see here for more details of resolution, WQXGA has about 2 inches of more rendering space then QXGA
Use whatever brings you joy though, they are both great devices I think the apple web browser is much more responsive on certain HTML 5 elements and the Samsung is great for everything else videos, music, tweaking ...etc

advantage of using 4K screen resolution on Note 10 plus?

Hi guys,well I want to ask you smart question and I really don't know the answer.
I got myself used Note 10 plus and because of the battery issue I switched to 1080p resolution to save some battery.
Then I opened some webpage like lets say webcam site chaturbate.
From what I know on monitors,higher resolution on monitor gives more web content on screen,so on my 1440p monitor I can see more webcam models on screen compared to 1080p monitor.
I thought then it's the same with phone screens,increasing resolution to 4K,I'll see more webcam models then 2 cams per line which was not the case,switching screen to 4K I haven't seen any difference.
So is it suppose to be like that,or I'm missunderstanding something here?
Why won't it work like on PC monitors/screen?
How can we take advantage of 4K on phones,in my case on Note 10 plus?
Does it have advantage switching to 4K when viewing websites,besides videos ofc?
Even when watching videos I doubt anyone (any human eye) will notice difference on 6.8 " screen with 1080p vs 4K on Note 10 plus.

paparazzo79 said:
Hi guys,well I want to ask you smart question and I really don't know the answer.
I got myself used Note 10 plus and because of the battery issue I switched to 1080p resolution to save some battery.
Then I opened some webpage like lets say webcam site chaturbate.
From what I know on monitors,higher resolution on monitor gives more web content on screen,so on my 1440p monitor I can see more webcam models on screen compared to 1080p monitor.
I thought then it's the same with phone screens,increasing resolution to 4K,I'll see more webcam models then 2 cams per line which was not the case,switching screen to 4K I haven't seen any difference.
So is it suppose to be like that,or I'm missunderstanding something here?
Why won't it work like on PC monitors/screen?
How can we take advantage of 4K on phones,in my case on Note 10 plus?
Does it have advantage switching to 4K when viewing websites,besides videos ofc?
Even when watching videos I doubt anyone (any human eye) will notice difference on 6.8 " screen with 1080p vs 4K on Note 10 plus.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"4K" or WQHD+ on the note does not really relate to extra space on the screen like computer monitors. as the computer monitor scale back the size of the Icons and increase perceived desk space (depending on monitor size and max resolution capabilities) as the UI on smartphones must be readable the gain is barely perceivable. You can adjust the size of the icon to make it look like you gained some space but it wouldn't be accurate.
The real difference and depending on you, you may or may not perceive it, is on the pixel density.
In 1080p the Note has a certain pixel density, when you shift to "4K", you have a higher count of stacked pixel density. It looks better with some content that supports it but its sort of a cheat. The screen is not actually 4K, kind of like the 7nm vs 10 nm wafers in Intel Vs TSMC foundries. TSMC says it's 7 nanometers and intel 10, but they pack around the same transistor density, the names are mostly marketing.
You wont notice a big, if any, difference due to our own limitations (eysight), you can get a better picture of the issue looking up (Googling) "Full HD vs Quad HD" from the Oled Association.
They break it down a bit ...

Oh okay.Thank you for kind explanation.

Bomn said:
"4K" or WQHD+ on the note does not really relate to extra space on the screen like computer monitors. as the computer monitor scale back the size of the Icons and increase perceived desk space (depending on monitor size and max resolution capabilities) as the UI on smartphones must be readable the gain is barely perceivable. You can adjust the size of the icon to make it look like you gained some space but it wouldn't be accurate.
The real difference and depending on you, you may or may not perceive it, is on the pixel density.
In 1080p the Note has a certain pixel density, when you shift to "4K", you have a higher count of stacked pixel density. It looks better with some content that supports it but its sort of a cheat. The screen is not actually 4K, kind of like the 7nm vs 10 nm wafers in Intel Vs TSMC foundries. TSMC says it's 7 nanometers and intel 10, but they pack around the same transistor density, the names are mostly marketing.
You wont notice a big, if any, difference due to our own limitations (eysight), you can get a better picture of the issue looking up (Googling) "Full HD vs Quad HD" from the Oled Association.
They break it down a bit ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have 20/10 near vision and I really don't notice it. Maybe side by side...

blackhawk said:
I have 20/10 near vision and I really don't notice it. Maybe side by side...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Meh, its a color game, basicaly they put up more green leds ins ome situation which makes the colors look richer... a poor man's HDR

Bomn said:
Meh, its a color game, basicaly they put up more green leds ins ome situation which makes the colors look richer... a poor man's HDR
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doesn't seem to use any or just slightly more battery so I guess I'll sample it a while.
Forgot about the WQHD setting.
The 10+ still has one of the best displays. Lots of issues with the high refresh rate displays it seems.

Well, I barely notice a very little difference, very little indeed, and, mostly when viewing photos or videos taken with the best resolutions, for everything else, all look just the same

winoles said:
Well, I barely notice a very little difference, very little indeed, and, mostly when viewing photos or videos taken with the best resolutions, for everything else, all look just the same
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Went back to FHD. WQHD uses more battery (probably about 1%@hr more) and didn't make a difference I noticed doing what I normally do.
It's cool that it's there like many of the other 10+ options.
I have 20/10 vision.