How are the new laptop 1400x1050 resolution displays?

[Hulk]

I have decided that I'm going to get an IBM T23 notebook but am trying to decide whether I should go with the SVGA+ or XGA monitor.

I'm not worried about things being too small on the higher res display since I believe you can simply make the icons larger.

I guess the only real drawback to the SVGA+ display is gaming. To get decent frame rates you'd have to back the resolution down, and lose a lot of quality since the display wouldn't be running at the native res.

I don't plan on gaming too much on the laptop but was wondering what the general concensus is for people who own notebooks.

 

[jschuk]

Keep in mind that 700x550 is also a native resolution and therefore would work at full screen with no distortion. That would help your framerates as long as the game supported that resolution. I have seen 14.1" SVGA+ LCD's, the text is a little small if you don't increase the font, but the picture sure is crisp. Make sure that the computer can ouput 24bit or 32bit color to the LCD at that res.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

<< Keep in mind that 700x550 is also a native resolution and therefore would work at full screen with no distortion. That would help your framerates as long as the game supported that resolution. I have seen 14.1" SVGA+ LCD's, the text is a little small if you don't increase the font, but the picture sure is crisp. Make sure that the computer can ouput 24bit or 32bit color to the LCD at that res. >>


half of 1400x1050 is 700x525

i dont think that would work

 

[Derango]

On my Inspiron 8100, I have a SXGA+ LCD (made by IBM actually) and Its incredible. Very crisp text, nice colors, I would recommend it to pretty much anyone. I can take it down to 1024x768 or 800x600 without any color banding. The image just gets a little fuzzy. I only do this in games, so its like I have hardware anti-aliasing, without the speed hit If you look at it that way, its not that bad.

 

[Dat]

I've also got concerns about the native resolution. I am debating on whether or not to get an UXGA since I will probably only run the lappy at 1280x1024. I've notice that my old XGA looked great at 1024x768 but looked like shyte 800x600. Anyone with an UXGA wanna weigh in?

 

[CZroe]

New? Ha! I've had mine almost 2 years now (Well, not the same one the whole time)! I can't stand having an odd resolution, but it's better than 1600x1200 notebook displays. Why? Remember the dot pitch rating for monitors and how you can tell if it's "brilliant" or "dull" looking? That's because the larger the distance between phosphors(Which are what light up) on a monitor the less space there is "lighting up" on your monitor. On a laptop, the distance between pixels is VISIBLE all the way around every square pixel on the screen. A pixel on a CRT is made af many phosphors, and therefore is not a defining factor when choosing capable resolutions, but on a laptop more pixels means more of these "boxed cells" meaning more "lines" covering more surface area. The difference between a 1024x768 laptop display and the 1400x1050 is incredible. The 1024x768 display wins HANDS DOWN. Compare the Toshiba Satellite 5000-S504 (PIII) to the newer 1600x1200 model (P4). I can't believe they don't have an option to downgrade that screen!
1024x768 = Bright
1400x1050 = Washed out
Clear enough?

 

[SuperGroove]

1400x1050 is fairly nice. 1024x768 wallpaper scrolls nicely, and the jaggies that should be there are anti-aliased. Cool Which T23 are you getting?

 

[Ganryu]

I have a T23 (P3 1.13 GHz, 48GB HD, DVD, 56K/10/100/80211b, and SXGA+ screen) and love it.. much better built and lighter than Dell notebooks

 

[Hulk]

SuperGroove-

I think I'm going to get the 26479LU. I'm seriously considering picking one up on the 'bay.

Looks like the SVGA+ screen is the way to go for me. I went out and looked at another brand's SVGA+ screen and it was pretty nice. The salesman tried to talk me out of it, telling me everything would be too small. I increased the font size in the display properties and he was like, "oh."

Then I opened Word and changed the view to "fit width of page." It looked like a sheet of paper! Then he said, "yeah but what font size is that?" I said, "12, I just changed the zoom."

I will have to upgrade the 128MB RAM to at least 256.

Thanks to all for the comments.

 

[andrey]

I have Thinkpad T23 (2647-5KU) as well and from my personal experience, 1400 x 1050 is a very nice resolution, especially on T23. Text is very crisp, colors are bright and I'm totally in love with the screen.

As far as size of icons, I set my Windows fonts to large fonts, and while all of the icons are bigger and text is readable, I can fit way more stuff on my screen than if I would be able with 1024 x 768 resolution. In my opinion, if you have a choice between 1024x768 and 1400x1050, definitely go with 1400x1050. You'll love it!

 

[SuperGroove]

<< SuperGroove-

I think I'm going to get the 26479LU. I'm seriously considering picking one up on the 'bay.

Looks like the SVGA+ screen is the way to go for me. I went out and looked at another brand's SVGA+ screen and it was pretty nice. The salesman tried to talk me out of it, telling me everything would be too small. I increased the font size in the display properties and he was like, "oh."

Then I opened Word and changed the view to "fit width of page." It looked like a sheet of paper! Then he said, "yeah but what font size is that?" I said, "12, I just changed the zoom."

I will have to upgrade the 128MB RAM to at least 256.

Thanks to all for the comments. >>



Whatever you do, don't buy it from electro depot. Make sure you get the laptop ASAP. Ebay I do not recommend. Period.

 

[andrey]

<< Whatever you do, don't buy it from electro depot. >>


Totally agree! Also, if you decide to go with eBay, make sure sellers have good feedback (100+) and accept PayPal. However, as SuperGroove mentioned, eBay is not the best place to buy laptops.

 

[Hulk]

Okay, now I'm curious. I was considering electro depot.

What's up with electro depot?

Where are some good places to buy?

 

[SteelCityFan]

<< I've also got concerns about the native resolution. I am debating on whether or not to get an UXGA since I will probably only run the lappy at 1280x1024. I've notice that my old XGA looked great at 1024x768 but looked like shyte 800x600. Anyone with an UXGA wanna weigh in? >>




UXGA Here.... IBM Screen

When I was researching laptops and deciding which to get, screen resolution was the hardest decision to make. I tried going around to various stores to get a look at UXGA and SXGA screens before I ordered, but I only found 2 SXGA's total in this city. I went to Best Buy, CompUSA, Staples, Circuit City.. all the major chains... found 2.

I had to then order blind and would have to return it within 30 days if I did not like it.

Now for my opinion . I absolutely love the UXGA screen. I run it a 1600x1200 almost all the time except when playing games that the video card can't handle at 1600x1200. The screen space in incredible for doing graphics work or spreadsheets. I have seen some posts where people have put their monitors at 1600x1200 and concluded it is too small... not the same at all. This comparison does not work.

As someone else mentioned... yes, you can increase font sizes to get around the smallness. I think my icons are set to normal size, but my fonts are on large (not extra large). Cleartype is on (which looks great).

Dropping the resolution on the 1600x1200 screen is not bad at all. Very usable, and I sometimes do use a lower resolution. 800x600 looks normal because it is a factor. Even at 1024x768, it looks good. Interpolating a UXGA screen down to a lower resolution yields much much better results than some are used to seeing with a XGA screen simply because there are more pixels to work with. Dropping a XGA looked horrible! If I was planning on running in 1024x768 all the time (although I don't think you will need to), I would get the UXGA. It will interpolate better than the SXGA (Many companies only offer SXGA or UXGA on their top of the line laptops). Games are not a problem, and the difference it not noticeable.

Dell now also offers an "Enhanced UXGA" screen with more color depth, contrast, and much higher viewing angle. This sounds like a excellent screen, but it is a $100 upgrade from the regular UXGA I think... but with the improvements, it might be worth it... improving on something already great would yeild something incredible.

The guy I share an office with compliments on the screen just about every time he looks closely at it... he has a XGA on a Compaq he bought a couple years ago.

 

[nightowl]

On my Inspiron 8000 I have a 15" LCD running at 1400x1050. I use the normal font size on it and I have not had a problem reading the fonts or seeing the icons. The SXGA and UXGA displays are head and shoulders above the XGA screens. The displays is just as bright and colors look just as good but the display is so much more crisp. Going down to lower resolutions does yeild a somewhat blurred display but I always use 1400x1050 any way so it is not an issue. As far as games, I do not play them much on my laptop as it only has the 16MB Rage Mobility in it but due to the blurring from lower resolutions you do get FSAA with out any slow down.

 

[Eug]

While I don't mind a 1600x1200 15" screen with the large font setting, my fave is the 1400x1050 14" screen with large fonts. Actually small fonts is pretty good too, esp. on a 15" screen.

Note that a 15" screen at 1400x1050 is 116 dpi, which is very close to the 120 dpi large font setting in Windows. (120 dpi would require a 14.6" screen.)

1024x768 is suck on a 15" laptop TFT. For 1024x768 I'd MUCH rather have a 13" screen (at the 96 dpi small fonts setting). A 13" looks nicer, saves money, and is MUCH lighter.

As for gaming, I don't really give a damn what the native resolution of the laptop is. I can accept the loss of clarity for the few times I'd be gaming on a laptop, but then again, I almost never game on a laptop. A desktop is better in nearly every way, except portability. YMMV.

EDIT:

Some numbers:

1024x768 on a 12.1" screen ~ 106 dpi

1024x768 on a 15" screen ~ 85 dpi

1400x1050 on a 15" screen ~ 116 dpi

72 dpi with a 1024x768 resolution ~ 17.8" screen

96 dpi with a 1024x768 resolution ~ 13.3" screen

96 dpi with a 1400x1050 resolution ~ 18.2" screen

96 dpi with a 1600x1200 resolution ~ 20.8" screen

120 dpi with a 1024x768 resolution ~ 10.7" screen

120 dpi with a 1400x1050 resolution ~ 14.6" screen

120 dpi with a 1600x1200 resolution ~ 16.7" screen (I do this with my 19" CRT - 18" viewable)

96 dpi = Windows small fonts setting
120 dpi = Windows large fonts setting

 

[CZroe]

More pixels always means dimmer screen when dealing with the latest displays at the same sizes. I got almost identical Compaq 1800 laptops, and the 1024x768 display looked incredible, but the 1400x1050 was impossible to see in even the slightest amount of light. watching DVDs with more than one person was damn near impossible on it also. The reason is that when you cram more pixels into the same area, you cram more "cells" and the grid the cells use around the pixels becomes denser, and therefore uses more surface area. Less surface area in turns translates to less "lit" area, and the screen is duller, dummer, and all around hard to see (Looking at it straight on, you have to move your head from side to side to see everything).

 

[Eug]

<< More pixels always means dimmer screen when dealing with the latest displays at the same sizes. I got almost identical Compaq 1800 laptops, and the 1024x768 display looked incredible, but the 1400x1050 was impossible to see in even the slightest amount of light. watching DVDs with more than one person was damn near impossible on it also. The reason is that when you cram more pixels into the same area, you cram more "cells" and the grid the cells use around the pixels becomes denser, and therefore uses more surface area. Less surface area in turns translates to less "lit" area, and the screen is duller, dummer, and all around hard to see (Looking at it straight on, you have to move your head from side to side to see everything). >>


Not all screens are created the same.

My colleagues' 1400x1050 screens are very nice. I've seen some pretty crappy 1024x768 15" laptop TFTs.

 

[slunk]

I've been meaning to check out some UXGA and SXGA screens, but I cannot find anyone with them on display. Circuit City and Best Buy have the options for them, but they do not put them on display. They say they have them in the back and can't put them out yet. Pisses me off!

 

[CZroe]

Eug: That why I specified "latest displays at the same sizes" though I should have said "latest display technologies at the same sizes" Everyone says mine looks great, but that's just because they haven't seen the 1024x768 version!