1440x900 compared to 1680x1050

since most of you guys seem experts and more knowledge in here.

quick question

if i opended up photoshop and made two tempaltes one at 1680x1050 and the other at 1440x900

would that be a good comparison on the real estate difference of the screen?

or would more compe into play?

i am trying to get a true sense of the difference, becuase if i am right and what i did on photoshop is right, it's fairly obvious the diff.

 

That would be right. But you need to realise that you should be comparing the different resolutions on a similar sized screen. Hence one of the other main issue that would come into play is font size.
A size 10 on a lower resolution screen will look bigger than on a higher res screen.

 

Well, I mean, if it's 1440 x 900 and 1650 x 1080 on the same size of screen, that Photoshop comparison is not totally accurate as the 1650 x 1080 isn't actually going to be physically bigger than the 1440 x 900; it'll just be more densely packed. If you're only looking at the number of pixels in both resolutions, then the Photoshop comparison is appropriate.

 

well i would be talking about a 15.4 inch monitor.

i have an lg right now which is 1680x1050 i lowered the resolution down to 1440x900 and noticed some difference, like on certain sites i had to scroll a tad more, or at www.ncix.com example where it says Easter Sales ,, with the 1680x1050 to the right of it, i see 3 computer system boxes, but with the 1440x900 i see 2 ,

any of you have a 1440x900 might checking the site out?

Overall i am debatinb etween the asus c1s and c2s one is 1440 and the other is 1680 but the price diff is almost 300 here in canada

 

I've got a 22" viewsonic and a 15.4" laptop both at 1680*1050 and I can safely say it is a colossal difference in the size of font. Its not unbearable though and I can't imagine stuffing less screen real estate into my laptop. I however wouldn't recommend the 1680*1050 if there aren't any other benefits for $300

 

I don't think that difference is worth $300, as you can get yourself another monitor with that money, if you really need the real estate.

 

I would pay the 300$ if I really like that laptop. I rather pay more and get what I want. If I can't then I look at some other models. If there aren't any, then I'll just have to buy the expensive one.
What' my point is is that the difference is big, but you'll be using it for like, what maybe two years and you won't be completely satisfied with it.

 

I got a 17 inch 1440, i checked out that site, I see 2 boxes (that kind of pisses me off ><).

However, i prefer that resolution, because i tend to be 1 metre away from my screen, my 9600m gt wouldnt cope wih higher res, and, im used to it. (once i stop gaming with my laptop, i'll get a 1680 replacement tho)

 

I usually always recommend higher resolutions if they are available, but I can't see paying $300 for the 1440x900 -> 1680x1050 upgrade. Yes, 1680x1050 is noticeably better (mainly because it has 150 px more vertical space), but for $300 you can get a nice external monitor or just plain save the money.

 

1680 x 1050 @ 15.4" can be a little challenging for some people's eyes (mine, for example, I've been there).

In theory, it is possible to tweak display settings to increase sizes, but small pixels will remain as small pixels.

John

 

Thats what 1680 x 1050 looks like on my Windows laptop, the screen usually runs at 1920 x 1080 hope this helps in some way

 

Seems perfectly readable on my old hp laptop, and on my mbp.. maybe it depends on the screen? the one inside the HP laptop is a Chei Mei or somthing like that

 

Chi Mei, it's one of the biggest LCD producer. Chi Mei

 

That sure is one high resolution, that LCD monitor must also be pretty wide. Nice gadget you got there..

 

if you were on about my photo thats my HP 6715b laptop it was about £500 it has a 15.4" screen, i have amacbook too which runs at 17" 1920 x 1080 so everything is similar scale but that was considerably more

 

I liked 1680x1050 on my 15.4" But 1440x900 was also perfect IMO.
BUT I WOULD NEVER PAY $300 for the upgrade