How Do Laptop Display Resolutions Work?

[GustySoul]

Could someone answer a quick question for me? How do laptop display resolutions work? I'm debating replacing my desktop with a laptop and
someone told me that TFT monitors only have 1 real resolution while the others resolutions are virtual.

Can someone further explain what this means and what conseqeunces this has? Do the
"virtual" resoutions look bad? Also, is this just for laptop TFTs or are desktop
flat-panel monitors like this too?

Thanks,
obispo21

 

[AndyHui]

Yes...there's a real resolution and others are...erm....terrible. Most have a resolution of 1024 x 768 or something like that. Unlike a normal CRT, the size of the pixel is fixed. If you move to a lower resultion such as 800 x 600, then what the screen will do is make some lines of pixels become two lines....it looks awful. If you want to know what I mean, just pop up a DOS window on a laptop and see how the characters look.

 

[sohcrates]

most laptops i've seen have a native resolution of 1024x768. if you crank that down to, say, 800x600 (or attempt to crank it UP) the text becomes jagged and everything seems kinda blurry. so unfortunately, you're stuck with what you're laptop comes running at.

 

[PliotronX]

The upside is, you don't have to fiddle with controls to maximize the picture to the screen

 

[GustySoul]

Thanks for the quick responses - that helps alot.

If you happen to know...

I'm thinking about getting a DELL Inspiration 8000 Laptop. The 8000s come
with 15 inch TFT screens and you have the option of choosing SXGA (1400x1050) or
UXGA (1600x1200) at an extra cost.

I do alot of image work and graphic programming and currently run 1600x1200 on my
desktop (19inch FD Trinitron). I was wondering though, what does 1600x1200 look like on a 15 inch screen - is it too cramped to work well? I'm worried about this because the
single resolution thing means that if you lowered the resolution it would look bad right?

The Dell website seems to say that UXGA is better in every way compared to SXGA, but
I figure that might just be marketing.

Thanks for any help,
obispo21

 

[AndyHui]

1600 x 1200 is very small...the pixels are very fine.....I personally find it a little difficult to read, although a 15 inch LCD screen is HUGE in terms of laptops. It will be like trying to read 1600 x 1200 on a 17 inch CRT. Somewhat cramped.

 

[Oyeve]

I have a stinkpad a20 and I hate it. to get full screen I have to crank it up to 1600x1200 and it has an s3 vid chip! I thought they went out of business! Thank God my job bought it! I am sticking with my presario 1800.

 

[Eug]

Laptops only support one resolution properly.

If possible I recommend a 15" screen with 1024x768, or possibly 1400x1050. 1600x1200 is a bad idea, mainly because Windows and browsers don't support resizing of fonts and icons properly.

Actually, for the best bang for the buck, I recommend 14" screens at 1024x768 to everyone.

EDIT: To repeat what the guy below said. Don't get anything except TFT active matrix. Everything else sux.

 

[Gunbuster]

The new active matrix screens are a lot better a downsampling to a lower res. but it still is not great out of native.

 

[GustySoul]

Thanks for the good info everyone.

Eug, I see what you mean by best bang for the buck - 14 inch XGA screens really are a much better value. The problem is that I've gotten used to (been spoiled by)high resolutions on fairly large desktop screens and I was looking to keep a high resolution if I replaced my desktop with a laptop. Hmm - more stuff to consider before diving in. I wish this laptop stuff wasn't so expensive.

obispo21