1520 Screen Resolution

I recently ordered an Inspiron 1520 (now in production) so I still have some time to make changes. I've recently been reading some stuff about screen resolution and I'm having second thoughts about having chosen WSXGA+ (1680x1050 pixels). If I do some gaming and in the future I do have to lower the resolution below native so my computer can handle the graphical goodies (say to 1440x900), will the game look noticeably bad (I hear of a blurring effect running below native resolution). Also, I currently use a 17'' CRT (16.3 viewable) and run a 1024x768 resolution and think it's perfect for text and such...so I'm starting to guess that 1680x1050 may be a little too small for a 15.4'' widescreen LCD?

Help would be great, thanks guys!

 

A LCD displaying a non native resolution will look slightly blurred for sure. Just try with any screen. Then for a game, is it really a problem? I guess some will say yes, some will say no. Games already used some antialiasing systems, so this way you can turn antialiasing off, and let the screen interpolation do the job (seriously, did someone try? I know it won't be as efficient, but in theory, it should help a bit, shouldn't it?)

1680x1050 on a 15' if you are running at 1024x768 on a 17' will make a big difference. Then you can change the size of the font, but the rest will keep its size. So I think you should test before buying. Try to find someone with this resolution on a 15'. That's the only way to be sure.

 

Does increasing the font size and stuff really help, because I've tried that on my 17'' monitor with windows xp by increasing resolution and the DPI for the desktop and it just looked weird somehow...

 

So, I shouldn't go for the 1680x1050 ?

Would that make things too small or what? I'm sort of confused.

 

PR0DiGY we both are in the same boat As i was ready to buy VIAO FZ 190CTO. Till DELL launched their 1520. Some VIAO FZ 190 CTO owners had high pitched noise in their notebook's So, I decided to go with Dell 1520 Now I am confused with what resolution should I go with, The highest or some thing in middle.

 

yeah I think I'm changing my resdown to 1440x900

 

You can't do it today; all of Dell is off for 4th of July celebration.

I'm actually kind ahappy with my 1680x1050 because I play most games in a window anyway.

 

Yeah you're right I called today and no pickup from my rep. I'm still debating...somebody convince me of choosing 1440x900 or 1680x1050...

 

This thread might help you.

 

Thanks Iro, brightness was something I was looking at...but I'm still stuck on the resolution...

 

Thanks for the interesting research Iro - I wanted to see the screen resolutions in person so I went to the Mac Store (Played with the iphone as well - that thing is neat!).

I saw the 15.4" MBP with 8600GT thats has a standard display of 1440 X 900 - The icons were just right; the screen was really nice bright and crisp (300 Nits). I opened up IE and excel and for me the size was perfect. The only thing is that the MBP has an LED screen vs. LCD @ 250 Nits in the 1520 so WXGA+ screen on the Dell probably wont be that bright.

I then saw the 17" MBP that was scaled down to 1680x1050 - It has black bars on the sides so it was more like a 15.4" display and IMO the screen size was too small.

For me vividness is going to win over screen real estate and I am going to call to downgrade (Upgrade?) tomorrow. I just need one quick validation. I will be viewing some HD content streamed over a sling box pro - Can someone tell me what 1440 X 900 equates to? 720p or 480i?

I know that 1020i is 1920 X1024 but this not an option at all. Also I found this:

"So, even though you may be inputting a 1080i image into your HDTV, your TV may not have the ability to reproduce all the dots within those lines. In this case the signal is often reprocessed (upconverted or downconverted) to conform to the number and size of dots (pixels) on the physical screen. At full resolution on a 16x9 screen, a 1080i image is comprised of 1920x1080 pixels (about a two-megapxiel field).

However, if your monitor is not capable of reproducing the total pixel field, then the image is scaled to fit the number of pixels in the display monitor's pixel field. So, an HDTV image of 1920x1080 can be scaled to fit 1366x768, 1280x720, 1024x768, 852x480, or other pixel field. The relative loss of detail actually experienced by the viewer will depend on factors such as screen size and viewing distance from the screen."

So this means that It will downscale and I shouldnt see much loss in quality? Can anyone tell me what % loss are we talking here? Thanks!

 

Hey Vcash thanks a lot for your post...it really helped. I'm pretty much going to call tomorrow and have my screen downsized to WXGA+ too then.

 

Yeah I think that's a good choice. My last computer was a Dell Inspiron 6000 and the screen was 1680x1050 and while it was nice when displaying images and such, I found it cumbersome to keep on upsizing browser font sizes and I found that my posture was a lot worse because I kept on leaning forward to make out the small details on the screen. I then switched to my current WXGA screen and have found it to be a lot easier on the eyes and back but I think that WXGA+ is optimum. Jus my 2 cents there.

 

I don't get it... why not just keep your 1680x1050 in 1440x900 resolution if its a problem? Part of me doesnt mind paying $50 for the ability to go up that high if I want to. The only difference is the brightness, correct?

 

Well...you could run a lower resolution but the thing is I've tried that on LCD screens and the picture gets fuzzy as you tune down the resolution below its native since it starts taking up neighboring pixels to compensate for the lack of high res input...which makes it blocky...

 

Keeping a 1680x1050 is definitely not an option. It looks horrible.
Awhile ago I bought a dv6000t and returned it two weeks later. I hated the screen resolution even more than the crappy piano black finish which looked cheap, faded and greasy during the day. So I sent it back and ever since I have been looking for an affordable loptop with a better resolution and graphics.
I am now eagerly awaiting my 1520.

In the meantime, a friend of mine gave me an old 1600x1200 dell (15'' not 15.4) to use while I was looking and I love the screen.
The words did look a little small at first, but I got used to it fast and I love it. The desktop no longer looks like crap, watching movies is great and the icons no longer look un-anti-aliased.
I don't get why people complain about the letters being too small.
I would much rather have a screen which is so fine that I have to zoom in once in awhile (which is not even the case because I don't) than a screen which, IMO, should be used on 16 bit computers only.
Word had a zoom, adobe reader has a zoom, and when it comes to your browser you can increase the font size without sacrificing any quality.
What else is there to read? It is as easy as click scroll click. Pff asdflk;
Seriously though, my only question is not whether the 1600x1050 is the best resolution but whether the 8600M GT will be able to keep up.
Most people here talk about keeping their laptops for three even four -0) years. Well look around you people and feel the HD revolution.

 

posterY, that was something I was seriously considering...I doubt the 8600 GT will keep up with anything beyond basic to medium tasks (probably would struggle w/ modern games at high settings on that kind of res) and then reducing the res just kills the picture