9300 WXGA+ Screen Quality

Hi guys,

I'm thinking about buying a 9300, but I'm concerned about screen quality due to a bad experience with the 6000 WXGA screen (it was dull and not very good).

So... How do you guys like the WXGA+ screen on the 9300?

Is text sharp and crisp? Or just kinda "so-so"?

And are you happy with the size of everything on the screen? Are things too big? Too small? etc...


Thanks!

 

Well, for the most part it's OK...it is a matte finish, which (to me) took some time to get used to after the glossy screen on my 7422GX, and the brightness is not very even: there's a "sweet spot" in the middle of the viewing range where it's good, but from other angles it gets too dark/dull. The screen also has kind of a "sparkle" effect, I guess you could call it; kind of like a dusty CRT monitor. The resolution is good though, easy on the eyes and gives plenty of desktop space, and the sparkle is much less prnounced than in the TrueLife (WUXGA) screen. Whites are pleasantly close to white (with a slight bluish hue) and blacks are appropriately dark. Basically, it isn't ASUS or Fujitsu quality, but it's not aweful, either. And the performance can't be beat for the price.

 

Nice assessment... thanks!

Tell me, have you (or anyone else) ever seen the WSXGA+ screen on the 6000? It's really nice, very sharp... If so, how would you compare the quality of that screen to the quality of the 9300's WXGA+?

 

if you are going to have a larger screen (15" and up) and get the (w)xga resolution, it's going to be dull... the pixels are necessarily larger to accomodate the larger screen size. the downside is that items displayed on the screen will be less crisp than a higher res LCD of the same size.

if you want crisp, you have to jump up to (w)sxga or (w)uxga. however (1) you may not like the smaller size of the images displayed and (2) "crispness" boils down to personal preference; your acceptable level of crispness may be totally different than my acceptable level of crispness.

 

Good point. I have the WSXGA+ on the 6000 and it's beautifully sharp and crisp -- but the size of certain fonts are a bit small for my wife (this purchase will be for her). I was hoping that the 9300's WXGA+ screen would also be sharp & crisp, since it's an Ultrasharp. The WXGA on the 6000 is not an Ultrasharp -- and it shows!

I guess I'll hafta keep my fingers crossed and hope she finds the 9300 WXGA+ to be sharp & crisp enough!

 

maybe u should move to the 700m? my roommate has one and the screen is pretty darn nice. too small for me (size and res), but really crisp and glossy.

 

Too small for me too. Actually I'd like to get her the 6000 in WSXGA+. It's SO crisp & sharp! But again, some of the fonts are a bit small for her liking, so I figured the 9300 might be just the ticket. And this will be a desktop replacement, so it will stay at home 95% of the time. Therefore, size and weight will only occasionally be an issue.

 

Dell screens a built from the same dough (seeing them all, just for your info), if she is concerned about the screen, and if she does not play super GF6800 requiring games, get her something she really deserves and not a "poor man's" gaming machine. Toshiba and Fujitsu makes screens she'll thank you for.

But on the other hand, if she is ok with the color reproduction of your 6000 then 9300 will be ok as far as fonts go, little tranparent, but ok to read for a couple of hours at a time. It is actually bright and not dull, I would say too bright.

By the way, what will she be using it for, just a bisic stuff?

 

She and I both agree that the color and sharpness of the WSXGA+ on the 6000 is awesome. We both feel that the color and sharpness of the WXGA on the 6000 is dull.

No games. Mostly web surfing and MS Office (Outlook, Excel, etc.). Also some Photoshop. But no games.

 

Can she stand the decreased resolution on WSXGA you have. I am using SXGA screen but mostly at different steps down to have a bolder font look (12x10 and 10x7 depends on the mode and distance I am reading from), it is a little fishy, but better and much easier on eyes than ClearType in XP (I'm w2k hardcore). Anyway, just play with the resolutions a little and let her decide, I think it is better to have better screen and play with resolutions, that worst screen and have the "right" one.

 

According to the Dell web site, the qualities of the 2 screens include the following comparative specs (with the i9300's WUXGA in brackets):

i6000 WSXGA+ v. i9300 WXGA+
(i9300 WUXGA)

15.4" 1680x1050 v. 17" 1440x900
(17" 1920 x 1200)

Mpixels: 1.76 v. 1.29 (2.3)

Pixel pitch mm: 0.197 v. 0.255 (0.191)

Luminance cd/m: 185 v. 200 (185)
-------

= Pixels/": 129 v. 117 (133)

Given the increase in screen area from 107 sq" to 130 sq", the characteristics of the 15.4" WSXGA+ are closer to the 17" WUXGA (numbers in brackets) than the 17" WXGA+ .

 

Yeah, I kinda figured that, which is why I thought the 17" WXGA+ would be better suited for her (she finds WSXGA+ a bit too small). But it's the QUALITY of the WXGA+ screen that I'm wondering about. I'm hoping the sharpness & crispness will be CLOSE to the WSXGA+ -- otherwise she might not like it.

 

It is sharp and crisp and she'll like it.

 

Great. Thanks!

 

No, really, it is a very good monitor, you can watch beautifull movies and stuff on it (I did), it is just I am spoiled by IBM a little.