1920 x 1200 on a 15.4

Some 15.4 notebooks now offer 1920 x 1200 resolution. Has anyone used a screen like that? What are your thoughts? Worthy investment?

 

I personally feel that 1680x1050 is the best resolution for a 15.4" laptop.
Sure 1920x1200 provides more area to work with, but it can be hard to read on the 15.4" screen

A random fact,
the Dell inspiron 8500 was the first 15.4" laptop to ship with a 1920x1200 screen

K-TRON

 

I used 1680x1050 (15.4") for around 3 years and it is hardly bearable for my eyes. (if you wonder, my vision is 20/20.)

Anything over that resoultion seems totally ridiculous for me... They should sell a magnifier glass with the laptop too...



--

 

1680x1050 on my T500's screen seems the perfect resolution for me. Any smaller and I'd probably have to lean really close to the laptop to read text. Granted, there are DPI settings to increase text size, but everything still works the best at default DPI settings.

 

my friend had a 1920x1200 res on his dell m1530 and trust me, (i'm a training pilot and my eyes are good), but everything was really small on the screen. reading text was horrible in word. I really think a res of 1680x1050 is best for a 15 inch nb. 1920 is more for a 17 inch nb.

 

would it make any difference in gaming or watching 1080p content?

 

watching movies on that res was beautiful but gaming at that res is simply unachievable since most gfx cards cant handle the details at that res without rolling back settings. it would leave most games unplayable and unappealing . most nb cant handle games at 1680x1050.

 

how about farcry 1, on nvidia 9800 series?
that should look pretty good on that res

 

I concur with the above opinions that 1920x1200 is too much for a 15.4". At that screen size, 1080p isn't distinguishable from 720p.

 

1920x1200 is what my 24" lcd uses and has the same dpi as my 17" regular lcd. 1920x1200 on a 15.4" is really really tiny. I used it for about 5 minutes before my eyes hurt and had to lower the resolutions...whats the point of paying the extra if your not gonna use it?

 

yeah you should get a playable gameplay with some settings turned down at that res. current games will not run well though even with a 9800 unless you have a processor over 2.5 ghz or a quad core. swatch this vid for proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zC3te3e7yc

 

does the picture look any worse if you don't run the display at its native res?

 

Yes, the picture looks best at native resolution.

 

I personally find 1920x1200 on a 15.4" to be preferable - so much space. I have 1680x1050 on my notebook's 15.4" screen, it is great as well and the text is "just right". 1920 is a little small, but if it had been available on my HP, I would have opted for it.

 

one thing i noticed:
watching a movie on a 14'' @ 480p vs 720p not very much difference
playing a game on a 14'' @ 480p vs 720p there is a big difference
can anyone tell me why that is?

 

Because standard dvd's are only made in 480p. Only blueray go higher. Games can go as high as you want.

 

let me clarify: video file that is 720 x 480 vs 1280 by 720

 

For me WUXGA is just perfect, the screen quality is awesome- I used to have 1680x1050, but now I am just in love with my WUXGA screen! so much space and you can't see any single pixel on a screen -it's like painted.

 

I have 1920x1200 resolution on my M860TU, I feel it's much better than 1680x1050 on my two previous laptops.

 

Because it's already rendered. 720p is a cinch for modern processors (in decoding video). But changing resolutions for a game is much more intensive, as the cpu/gpu have to render each frame - the more pixels, the longer it takes to render.

 

I don't find this to be true. For small TVs that are 8 feet away I agree with you 100%, but people with good eyesight can very well see a difference between a 15.4" screen, 18 inches away, playing 1680*1050 and 1920*1200 respectivly. Of course trying to find the same video of good quality at both sizes is nearly impossible.

Personally, I couldn't live with anything over 1680*1050. I wanted it, but after seeing it in person I knew I couldn't handle it. After working with some laptops owned by others that had it: Its not for me. I love how much you can display at once, and that would be a great feature many times over the last six months, but trying to read text on anything that doesn't scale well just is too hard for my (average) eyesight.

 

is scaling text a big issue in modern systems?

 

No, it is OK with most applications

 

does a 15'' at 1920 x 1200 with scaling look better than 1680 without?

 

I prefer 1680 w/o scaling.

 

for me WUXGA is the best choice for photo and video editing plus HD movies- it is simply the best way to go!

 

I would also say that 1680 without scaling will look better. Also you will find it very hard to useful scaling on anything thats an image. That means websites with text in their logos, or button based navigation either won't scale, or will look painfully bad.

 

I won't even consider 1920 in a 17" screen. Font size is way too small. My eyes hurt andd changing the DPI is not a perfect solution.

 

I too prefer WUXGA on a 15.4 ", I prefer it to 1680x1050,
Sometimes the default fonts are small, but I just scale them up individually in the application. As someone pointed out, the sceen looks "painted on" and gorgeous.
I use linux, which I think does a better job at font scaling than XP.

A WUXGA provides more pixels than a WSXGA+. If the OS/application cant scale fonts properly when you increase the font size, then its a software bug.

For the same physical font size, a WUXGA will be clearer and easier on the eyes.

 

I definitely agree. I was using 1440x900 in 17" (FS A3667G) and it was quite comfortable. I think best choices are 1440x900 for 15.4" and 1680x1080 for 17".

 

1440-by-900 in the Macbook Pro is enough for me ^^!

 

1) WUXGA smaller than 17" is a nightmare in ANYTHING but photo editing. That might be the ONLY reason to get such an incredibly-high resolution screen that is under 17".
2) For gaming, the GPU (video) is working incredibly hard to give you native resolution. A 8400 GS can't play any kind of modern games at that high resolution, but step down to WXGA (1440x900) and it will be ok. Even the fastest laptop gaming cards in the WORLD can't render much well at this high resolution, so for gaming, this is a horrible choice or way to go. On that note...
3) The best all around resolution that will be HIGH-RES on a 15~15.4" LCD is 1680x1050 (WSXGA). That is the equivalent of a WUXGA on a 17" LCD (as high res as one can get currently) but with the smaller 15" form (I.E. with an inch cut off two sides essentially).

You'll still need the fastet video card money can buy, if you're a gamer, otherwise stick to 1440x900 (WXGA) and NO HIGHER resolution for a 15~15.4" notebook.

 

What do you mean by "now"? Such laptops have been avaliable for about half a decade "now"... Anyway, I have used laptops like that for years, and they're fine if your eyes are good. If not, you could consider increasing your DPI until you're confortable, which gives you the best of both worlds.

 

What about 1080p on a 16" 16:9 laptop? I just ordered one and hope it isn't to small.