Is WUXGA (1920x1200) on a 15.4" too much?

[amphibious]

I'm in the market for a laptop... my desktop system is running two 19" monitors at 1600x1200, so screen space is very important to me. I was looking around on the web yesterday and came across the HP/Compaq laptops that have 15.4" WUXGA displays... now 1920x1200 sounds awesome, but then I realized that it's like 25% more pixels on a display that's only 67% the size, so I decided to go find one and see for myself... well... I can't find them... anywhere. I went to two CompUSAs, two Best Buys, two Circuit Citys, Costco, Staples, OfficeMax, two local computer stores, and two laptop only stores, and NOBODY had any laptop with a WUXGA display.

So, I figured out the pixel density of my displays... which is roughly 12345 pixels per square inch, a 15" monitor running the same resolution of 1600x1200 has a pixel density of 17777 pixels per square inch (I did see one of these monitors and it looked great), and the WUXGA 1920x1200 monitor would have a density of 21880... when it's put that way it seems like it wouldn't be overkill...

Has anyone seen them? If so, where? Are they TOO high res?

Any thoughts would be appreciated...

 

[GnomeCop]

personally I love those WUXGA panels, but seriously I can only speak for myself. You really need to see it for yourself to know if its overkill or not.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Density might not be as bad as you think, as the screen would be wide screen and have a different ratio...also being LCD helps. I'm currently typing this message on a 15" UXGA laptop LCD and it is really nice. I was intimidated as well coming from a 19" @ 1280x1024, here I was going from a lower resolution on a bigger screen to a higer res on a smaller screen. Never have had any regrets so far. The LCD UXGA display I have is so damn crisp and clear it really is amazing. The thing I was woried about most was being able to read text like what I'm typing now but I can see it just fine... perhaps if your eyesight isn't so great you might not enjoy it, but you're already running 1600x1200 on your 19" of which compared to my parents is pretty good as anything for them over 1024x768 on their old 19" CRT is somehow too small for them.

The screen space is worth it, I'd think if it were too absurd that they wouldn't risk trying to sell it. Also keep in mind that you generally are stitting closer to the laptop screen than a regular PC monitor.

 

[RonS]

For me, yes it is too much. I've used two Dell 8600's (15.4"), one with the 1920x1200, another with 1680x1050.

I have excellent vision. The 1920x1200 is razor sharp, but it just took too much work to see those small icons and text. For writing software, it was not practicle. Others that I know who have this notebook use an external display for most of their work.

The 1680x1050 is, I believe, the "sweep spot" for resolution on the 15.4" widescreen.

Regardless of the resolution, running at anything other than native resolution results in degraded visual quality. If you get the 1920x1200, then run with it and don't run at lower resolutions.

 

[Bateluer]

I like a lot of desktop space too, but 1920x1200 seems like it'd be a bit too small on a 15in screen. Perhaps you can find a user that has such screen and get them to take an uncompressed screen shot for you?

 

[GnomeCop]

The 1600x1050 is the sweet spot for most people I beleive but the 8600s have had the most problems with that screen (substandard panels, artifacts, lines during dvd playback.)

I would stay away from that panel until the issues have been resolved. maybe they have, havent checked in awhile since I got my Voodoo

 

[JuicyFruit]

The problem with the 8600 was with the WSXGA+. And when you used a different dvd program, the lines disappeared.

 

[jpeyton]

Too much. WSXGA is just perfect.

 

[Firus]

I too am typing on a UXGA Laptop LCD running at 1600x1200 and my god, it is the most crisp clear display I have ever seen. I have compared it other Laptop LCDs using the SXGA+ and in comparison, the SXGA+ is crap...the most prominant thing is the viewing angle. The UXGA's viewing angle is way too good to pass up (I'm assuming WUXGA is the same as UXGA and WSXGA+ is the same as SXGA+ ) you can see the screen as clearly from straight off the sdie as you can from straight on whereas the lower quality screens get dark and blurry from the an angle. I would not pass up the higher quality screen as it is what determines clarity and how well your eyes do after long hours of looking at it.

You will definately not think it is too much when you see how nice it looks

 

[JuicyFruit]

To each his own but I'd have to agree with Firus on the UXGA. For the last couple of years, I've tried to maintain 1600x1200 resolutions. When I got my Sager lappy with a 15" UXGA awhile back, I couldn't believe how small the text was. But just after a couple of hours, I realized it was the most awesome thing. Crisp, crisp, crisp display. The viewing angle was incredible. I know now because I have since sold the Sager for a Dell 8600 with a 15.4" WUXGA (1920x1200). While the extra real estate is badass in its own right, I do miss the viewing angles offered on the Sager. I have to constantly tilt my screen to find the best spot for clarity and brightness.

Originally posted by: Firus
I too am typing on a UXGA Laptop LCD running at 1600x1200 and my god, it is the most crisp clear display I have ever seen. I have compared it other Laptop LCDs using the SXGA+ and in comparison, the SXGA+ is crap...the most prominant thing is the viewing angle. The UXGA's viewing angle is way too good to pass up (I'm assuming WUXGA is the same as UXGA and WSXGA+ is the same as SXGA+ ) you can see the screen as clearly from straight off the sdie as you can from straight on whereas the lower quality screens get dark and blurry from the an angle. I would not pass up the higher quality screen as it is what determines clarity and how well your eyes do after long hours of looking at it.

You will definately not think it is too much when you see how nice it looks