I-mate JAMA 101 Screen Size Dimensions
I-mate JAMA 101 screen size dimensions, viewport size, pixel density and more information.
Specs:
WIDTH | 320 px |
---|---|
HEIGHT | 240 px |
SCREEN SIZE INCH | 2.4" |
PX DENSITY | ~167 ppi |
ASPECT RATIO | 1 1/3 |
DISPLAY TYPE | TFT resistive touchscreen, 65K colors |
PHYSICAL SIZE MM | 105 x 52.5 x 15.5 mm |
OPERATING SYSTEM | Microsoft Windows Mobile 6.0 Professional |
RELEASE DATE | Cancelled |
Information:
The i-mate JAMA 101 features a 2.4-inch TFT resistive touchscreen with a resolution of 320 x 240 pixels, resulting in a pixel density of approximately 167 pixels per inch (ppi). The screen has an aspect ratio of 1 1/3 and supports 65K colors.
In terms of industry standards and user expectations, the screen size and resolution of the i-mate JAMA 101 align with the lower end of what was typical for smartphones at the time of its planned release. The 2.4-inch screen size may have been considered small compared to contemporary smartphones, which were trending towards larger displays. Additionally, the 320 x 240 pixel resolution, while suitable for basic tasks, may have been seen as lower than the standard for providing a sharp and detailed display, especially for viewing multimedia content and web browsing.
The pixel density of approximately 167 ppi is lower than what is considered high definition in modern standards, which typically start at around 300 ppi for smartphones. This lower pixel density may result in less crisp and clear visuals, which could impact user experience, especially when interacting with small text or graphics.
The device's physical dimensions of 105 x 52.5 x 15.5 mm (4.13 x 2.07 x 0.61 in) are compact, which may have been a positive aspect for users seeking a smaller and more pocket-friendly device. However, the small screen size and lower resolution may have limited the device's appeal for tasks that require a larger and higher-quality display, such as media consumption and productivity.
Overall, while the i-mate JAMA 101's screen size and resolution may have been adequate for basic smartphone functionality at the time, they would likely have fallen short of industry standards and user expectations for a more versatile and visually engaging user experience.