How much better is SXGA+ vs. SXGA?

[SubZeroX]

is SXGA+ is worth the $100 more it costs than SXGA for a laptop?

 

[Viper GTS]

SXGA = 1280x1024
SXGA+ = 1400x1050

Your call.

Viper GTS

 

[Mani]

If you play games, go with SXGA (not plus) since there's not many games that support 1400x1050 so you won't be able to run them in your LCD's native resolution.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Mani
If you play games, go with SXGA (not plus) since there's not many games that support 1400x1050 so you won't be able to run them in your LCD's native resolution.

Powerstrip

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Mani
If you play games, go with SXGA (not plus) since there's not many games that support 1400x1050 so you won't be able to run them in your LCD's native resolution.

Powerstrip

Powerstrip would be of absolutely no assistance.

However, running an LCD outside of it's native resolution is not necessarily a bad thing for games, consider it free AA.



Viper GTS

 

[Mani]

You do get edges blurred, but you also get color banding, which is pretty much always a bad thing.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Mani
You do get edges blurred, but you also get color banding, which is pretty much always a bad thing.

Do you have the option of running a smaller resolution within the screen?

For example, let's say you wanted to run 1280x960. Could you run the game at 1280x960 with a 60 pixel border on each side + 45 on top & bottom?

I could tolerate that, since a laptop wouldn't be my primary gaming system.

I dunno if you can do that though...

Viper GTS

 

[manly]

I've been curious for some time: how well do the latest operating system support these super high-res modes?

Besides "large fonts" (even arbitrarily user scalable) and themes for people with vision problems, does WXP or anything else provide good or better support for SXGA+ or UXGA on a 14" LCD?

High end CRTs and notebook LCDs support super high resolutions these days, but all but the most crazy geeks generally run conservative modes because all the widgets and the look & feel would be microscopic otherwise. WXP's Luna widgets are bigger than the old look & feel, but all the UI components should automagically scale up at high resolutions w/o user intervention.

Correct me if I'm behind the times.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: manly
I've been curious for some time: how well do the latest operating system support these super high-res modes?

Besides "large fonts" (even arbitrarily user scalable) and themes for people with vision problems, does WXP or anything else provide good or better support for SXGA+ or UXGA on a 14" LCD?

High end CRTs and notebook LCDs support super high resolutions these days, but all but the most crazy geeks generally run conservative modes because all the widgets and the look & feel would be microscopic otherwise. WXP's Luna widgets are bigger than the old look & feel, but all the UI components should automagically scale up at high resolutions w/o user intervention.

Correct me if I'm behind the times.

I run 1600x1200 with no problems, I just increased the font size for icons slightly.

Granted I'm on a 18" viewable CRT, but even with my poor vision it's easily useable.

Most of the laptops with 1600x1200 have 15"+ displays, I believe. My roommate occasionally brings home a Dell laptop from his work, & although it is quite small running 1600x1200 it is readable even by my standards.

Viper GTS

 

[manly]

Viper GTS,

Thanks for the explanation. Sounds like you guys more or less fall into the "crazy geeks" category I mentioned though.

I run 1152x864 on my 19" CRT = 18" viewing area with standard fonts. I could bump up to the next resolution with large fonts, but then the widgets would be tiny for my tastes.

So unless I'm really missing something obvious here, it sounds like your buddies are able to cope w/ small UI components better than I am. I do realize that notebooks generally come w/ proprietary display software that helps manage the resolution scaling effects, so maybe that's the catch?

 

[Mani]

Notebooks just use the vid card to scale images, but just about always there will be artifacts. If you have to scale, it's best to pick resolution that have the same aspect ratio of the native resolution (i.e. 1024x768 or 800x600 for a 1600x1200 native), 4:3 aspect). Most desktop LCDs include scalars that will scale in their hardware and are typically much better than vid card scaling solutions, though there are exceptions - some desktop LCDs rely on vid cards to do the scaling as well (most notably, Apple's since they have those damnable TMDS interfaces).

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

i run 1600 x 1200 at 85hz on a 18" viewable monitor without bumping any text sizes up....works fine for meh

 

[manly]

I was at Best Buy earlier looking at a Sony notebook with 16" XGA LCD running at 1600x1200.

With large fonts, it was quite readable but the text and widgets were definitely on the smaller side (it reminded me of running 1024x768 on a 15" CRT).

So while it's fine for some folks, I think running such a high res on a 15" or smaller LCD on W2K (with its smaller UI components) would be somewhat difficult.

 

[bizmark]

Originally posted by: manly
Viper GTS,

Thanks for the explanation. Sounds like you guys more or less fall into the "crazy geeks" category I mentioned though.

I run 1152x864 on my 19" CRT = 18" viewing area with standard fonts. I could bump up to the next resolution with large fonts, but then the widgets would be tiny for my tastes.

So unless I'm really missing something obvious here, it sounds like your buddies are able to cope w/ small UI components better than I am. I do realize that notebooks generally come w/ proprietary display software that helps manage the resolution scaling effects, so maybe that's the catch?

I run 1600x1200 on my 21" CRT (20" visible) and I can read everything just fine. There's an option in WinXP to make your desktop icons bump up in size... I've done that just because it looks cool Everything else is still the same size (Start Menu, system Tray, etc.) But then I think I'm in the "crazy geeks" category since I do a lot of web design/Photoshop/power-browsing/etc. It's awesome to be able to have two IE windows open right next to each other.... or WordPerfect and Excel, or Excel and IE, or two pages across in Acrobat. Plus I can always see my WinAmp and my email (an SSH window 24x80 characters big) even when I've got other programs open. More screen real estate = good

 

[manly]

bizmark,

Actually your experience is exactly what I'm referring to. Historically, 1600x1200 is the natural resolution for a 21" CRT.

So my question is how do they reasonably implement that resolution on a 15" LCD. There's a HUGE real estate difference between 20" diagonal viewing area vs. 15" diagonal viewing area.

Large fonts alone doesn't make up the difference. In WXP, the Luna UI + the large icons you mention definitely help a lot. But I think other operating systems widgets would appear miserably small on a UXGA LCD at native resolution. I'd like to know otherwise of course.

As an example, I've tried running my 19" CRT at 1600x1200 and I just can't deal with it (the monitor itself is more than capable of course). Even 1280x960 is a stretch (testing it right now in WXP) so that's why I comfortably run at 1152x864. Believe me, I'd love the extra resolution if I could get it without squinting. And for the record, my eyesight is still decent.

 

[AzNmAnJLH]

i ran it at 2048X1536 once... damn it is tiny