Poll: WSXGA+ 1680x1050 or WUXGA 1900x1200 for 15.4''

Hi all,

Could you please take couple seconds to complete this poll for me. I am so confused right now, so every opinion will be counted.

Thanks,

 

u forgot to add a poll, but +1 for WUXGA for me. been using WUXGA screens in all of my laptops (15.4" inchers to 17" inchers) for about 5-7 years now, and i will never be switchin back to a lower resolution screen. ever.

 

Thanks so much for voting. Poll added.

 

WSXGA+ seems to be the sweet spot for me on a 15.4" widescreen. I could possibly tolerate WUXGA, but I'd imagine that it would be too much a strain (my eyes aren't great; I'm nearsighted).

 

i came back and voted =P

 

i guess that for 17 inches or largers the 1900x1200 is the best

but for 15 inches wsxga+ seems better

 

Are they both HD? If so I'd go with de wsxga+, better for my eyes^^

 

not sure why alot of ppl say that WUXGA is worst on yur eyes. u can set yur own default font and icon sizes via DPI settings. web pages can be set to yur own preferences or can easily be adjusted to yur likin via CTRL + mouse wheel.

today's downscaling capabilties are pretty flawless. with WUXGA, u can have the high resolution when u want/need it, and be able to downscale in games for better performance. u don't have that option with a smaller resolution.

 

Lower resolution is easier on the eyes for those who don't have great vision. I prefer WXGA+ or WSXGA+ for 15.4".

 

1680x1050 for 15in
1920x1200 for 17in

Thats my general rule of thumb for max "wanted" resolutions. It will be different for everyone though.

 

12.1" and smaller - WXGA
14.1" - WXGA+
15.4" - WSXGA+
17.1" and larger - WUXGA

IMO

 

To some degree it will depend on the display. On the T500 for example, the WSXGA+ is a better display than the WUXGA. For a 15.4" I think most people would say WUXGA is too small. With a Pixels per Inch of 148, it will have amongst the smallest text on any notebook, though some do like it. I don't mind the resolution so much, but give me a quality display and I'll be happy.

 

thats what i'm sayin. why not have the best resolution screen and however big size font u want? u can have the best of both worlds with a WUXGA screen. the display quality and real estate is simply unreachable on lower resolutions.

*shrugs*
to each his/her own i guess.

 

1680x1050 unless you want to go blind.

 

Since I'm seeing many ill-informed responses here ('unless you want to go blind'), time to bring out the 15.4" WUXGA FAQ (tm):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Q: Are things 'smaller' on WUXGA screens compared to WSXGA or WXGA?

A: Only if you don't adjust your dpi settings in Vista accordingly. 196dpi is a good setting for a 15.4" WUXGA screen under Vista.

Q: A 15.4" WUXGA screen, wouldn't that be hard on my eyes because the pixels are so small?

A: No. Because the resolution is higher, eyestrain is actually reduced because of a reduction in aliasing. The Nyquist-Shannon Theorem states that aliasing will occur when sampling rate is less than twice of signal bandwidth. A higher sampling rate, implicit in a WUXGA screen, hence will reduce aliasing, and will reduce eyestrain.

Q: Do 15.4" WUXGA screens consume more electricity?

A: Generally, yes. The tighter pitch of the pixels results in greater light attenuation, which means that, for acceptable image quality, one will need to turn their brightness up higher and/or the laptop's designer will need to use a stronger, more energy intensive backlighting system.

Also, CPU's and video chipsets will have to perform proportionally more calculations in order to display a WUXGA image. This consumes more energy, and hence, reduces battery life.

Q: Can I run my WUXGA screen in WSXGA+, or WXGA, as a reduced resolution?

A: You can, but pixels will be ommitted, text will look munged, and things will generally look ugly, unless you use the resolution of 960x600, whereby, 4 pixels on the WUXGA screen represent 1 pixel of a 960x600 image.

Q: Will web pages designed for 1024x768 or WXGA screens, "look funny" on my 15.4" WUXGA screen?

A: The latest version of Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 is able to properly scale bitmap graphics so nothing 'looks funny', and text is not out of place. This is an improvement over previous versions of Internet Explorer which did not properly render content in high-resolution screens, even if the 'scaling' function is used.

Q: What settings in IE8 work well for web browsing with a WUXGA 15.4" screen?

A: 150% zoom, or even 200% zoom will deliver a user experience with text similar in size to a WXGA screen running at 100% zoom. The text, of course, will be more richly defined and will have a reduction in discretization and aliasing, because of the higher sampling rate inherent in WUXGA technology.

Q: Should I buy a WUXGA screen for my new 15.4" laptop?

A: Yes, if you can live with the downside of reduced battery life. A 9-cell battery (or better) is pretty much mandatory because of the high power draw inherent in 15.4" WUXGA screens, and their associated hardware.

 

196dpi? That must be a typo. I can't select more than 192dpi under Vista x64. And setting the DPI scaling to 144dpi (150%) should yield font sizing comparable to a WXGA display.

I use my 15.4-inch WUXGA screen at the default setting of 96dpi. I do encounter an occasional web site where I need to enable a slight zoom level in the browser, but otherwise it's not a problem. Even with my poor eyesight it's not a problem, as long as I'm wearing my eyeglasses (which I always am, otherwise almost everything would be a blur).

 

From what I read on xoticpc's website, there are many people who claim that games will be displayed better in WSXGA+ than WUXGA. I am not sure if this is 100% true.

Can I ask you if we can set our own font and icon sizes, then how come many people still say that with WUXGA, you will likely hurt your eyes?

 

The general rule is that everything looks nicer on native resolution. So, if you have a powerful enough graphics card that can run games very well at WUXGA resolution, games will look nicer on that resolution than at WSXGA+. But, the majority of GPUs cannot run all games maxed at such a high resolution, so often, for a playable framerate, you are forced to lower the resolution. Running at non-native resolution, it would look "worse" than a WSXGA+ screen running at native resolution.

Although WSXGA+ vs. WUXGA is largely personal preference, you also have to factor in the particular screens in question. Screens have varying qualities, and on the W500, for example, the WSXGA+ screen is very nice, while the WUXGA screen is often said to be unevenly backlit and dim.

 

Yeah 144 dpi, sorry. 192's a typo.

If you go into the DPI setting screeen on Vista, you can drag the ruler to set higher DPI settings. Maximum setting I can achieve is 500%, or ~500dpi.

 

The average user doesn't know how to right click on the desktop, select "Personalize", and then select, "Adjust font size (DPI)" in the menu perhaps?

Its a mystery why these complaints of 'too small' keep turning up.

 

DPI-scaling has not been acceptable in any Windows OS thus far. I don't have Win7 installed anymore so I can't check if it is better; maybe it is.

Regardless, I vote 1680x1050, that's the max I would want in a 15" screen.

 

1900x1200 is too small for 15.4"

 

Can I ask you between WSXGA+ and WUXGA for Sager NP8662, which one do you think is better?

 

WSXGA definately.

WUXGA makes words and such way too small on a 15 incher. They need to be on 17 inchers

 

And what's wrong with the way dpi scaling works in Vista?

Did you even bother reading the rest of the thread? The size of text has nothing to do with the screen resolution, but everything to do with the dpi setting. (bolded for emphasis)

I see we have another ill-informed person here. Change yer freakin DPI setting if you find text to be 'too small'.

 

Changing the DPI only goes sofar. In my opinion it's not an option. Like several people have explained.

Lots. Many applications can have words 'falling off' the edges. Even the start menu has it.

 

Well...I didn't read the thread thoroughly before but here are my thoughts explained more thoroughly:

Okay, you can change the text size as well as windows size for browser viewing but that really kinda destroys the point of having a higher resolution. What use is a WUXGA if you zoom in on everything to make it just like WSXGA in normal viewing? Don't say productivity because if you made everything bigger on your screen, you're basically counteracting the increase in productivity due to more workspace.

Yes, you have the option to have higher resolutions in game but that to me is a double edged sword. The HUD interface is usually more optimally designed i games for lower resolutions like WSXGA. It is subjective but I feel that HUD icons are supposed to be a relative size and when you run it at native for WUXGA screens, they look abnormally small and very awkward, which would compel me to switch to a WSXGA resolution.

Thus, the only real advantage (for me anyways) would either be photo editing or watching high resolution videos (1080p and such).

Most of us here on the forums are not professionals who edit photos all day. For the occasional edit here or there, there is nothing wrong with a lower resolution screen. Yes, it is awkward at times but that doesn't justify an upgrade to a bigger screen. If you are a professional who edits photos all day, then most laptop screens are probably too poor (in other areas such as color and such) and you most likely have an incredibly expensive but awesome monitor that you can just use instead of the standard laptop screen.

Regarding videos: can you really tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 15.4inch screen? I can't and I'm usually very good at those things. Once you get to a point, any increases in resolution is subject to diminishing returns. A 1,000,000p video will definitely be better than 1080p but I doubt that you can see much of a difference on a small laptop.

The resolution difference is very noticeable if you have a huge 40 inch monitor but then you have a monitor and it makes the argument between screen resolutions on the laptop moot.

Long story short, if you can get the WUXGA screen at the same or very close to the price of the WSXGA, go for it since most of the issues people have with it can be resolved but I personally see no justification in making it a very high priority when shopping for laptops. Price and performance are miles above screen resolution.

 

The 'point' is that by adjusting the DPI upwards, you are reducing aliasing. A reduction in aliasing also reduces eystrain. Its like reading a book printed using a dot-matrix printer (remember those?!), versus reading a book printed on a nice printing press, with proper rounded fonts. The closer you 'get' to the theoretical bandwidth of the signal that's on the screen, meaning, the fonts, the better.

I explained *why* the high dpi is also better for text. A major component of eyestrain is dealing with the font aliasing that occurs because LCDs are discrete digital samplers of the output of a computer, as opposed to CRT's (that receive discrete signals, but by the very nature of a CRT, apparent aliasing is reduced because the e-beam will also cause adjacent phosphors to illuminate), or opposed to a printed book with 300dpi+ bandwidth.

The laptop's screen is probably the most important component in the laptop these days. Everything else can be upgraded, replaced, etc., but you're pretty much stuck with the screen over the long haul. WUXGA has some downsides, there's no denying that (I'm not a zealot either), but I just want people to know the facts about such screens when there seems to be a lot of misinformation out there, esp. concerning text size.

 

WUXGA is not suitable for 15", imho. You should definitely check out in person before you consider this.

WUXGA panels seem to be -generally- among the better quality for laptops but SIZE does not necessarily equal QUALITY. Common general consumer mistake to mix the two.

 

WSXGA+ is, as others have said, the sweet spot for 15" screens.

And in MY opinion, maybe even smaller than that.

 

honestly, i would have agreed with u if this was 5-10 years ago. today's OS and screen technology has pretty much remedied most of those cons that the WUXGA's of yesteryear were known for.

turnin up the font size on a WUXGA does not decrease it's productivity. u can increase any page or document's content up to a size 20. it's still the same window size, on more real estate, except the contents in the window is the size that u desire. turnin up the font has nothing to do with decreasing yur resolution, real estate, or productivity.

vista scales beautifully. simple as that. from simple DPI/icon settings to gaming, it does it without losin any noticeable quality. i play some games at 1920X1200, some at 1440x900, and others at 1080p. all of them are downscaled perfectly, without any artifacts or imperfections. plus, games now a days have been optimized for 1920x1200 or 1080p quality. laptops have come a long, long way CPU & GPU-wise. i suggest everyone go out and actually learn how to work a WUXGA properly. tailor the settings to suit yur wants/needs, try to get used to it in yur everyday life, and then come back and make a real opinion about it. i am sure most will convert, or at the least have better things to say about the WUXGA. there is just way too much misinformation when it comes to today's WUXGA capabilities.

 

I've seen quite a few errors with Vista DPI scaling.... that's why I would never recommend 1900*1200 on 15.4".

Windows just works best in default DPI, at least in my experience.

 

I just went from a T60 w/ WSXGA+ to a T61p to a WUXGA to a W500 with WSXGA+.


I loved WUXGA, and did the appropriate adjustments, but I'm of the opinion that WSXGA+ in 15.4" represents the sweet spot for me, 120-130PPI. WXGA in 12, WXGA+ in 14, WSXGA+ in 15.4, and WUXGA in 17"

I wouldn't complain either way, but the WSXGA+ screen is certainly brighter than the WUXGA was.

 

that's weird cuz i haven't seen any errors yet. my vista's default setting was at 96dpi. i didn't even need a 'custom DPI setting', i just used their provided 'large' option which was 120dpi. all fonts are much more crisp than on a lower resolution screen.

like i've stated many times. i've been usin nothing but WUXGA screens in my 15.4" - 17" notebooks, for the last 5-7 years. i've personally seen the progression in the WUXGA's screen quality and capabilities. they have come a very long way. don't some of u guys remember when they said **** x *** resolution was too high. then that resolution became the norm, and now WUXGA is unnecessary. it's just a vicious cycle.

yes, there are lower resolution screens out there that are brighter. havin the most brightness really doesn't mean anythin when u have to turn it down half way, so yur screen won't blind u. plus, brightness =/= better screen quality. when it comes to image quality, real estate, and viewing angles. the WUXGA just can't be beat with by a lower resolution screen.

 

While WUXGA has the edge on real estate, it's the actual screen type that determines the image quality (color accuracy) and viewing angles. Having WUXGA doesn't automatically mean better screen.

 

although the screen type/manufacturer, does matter. that also applies for all the resolutions and whatever size screens they come in. i was simply talkin about the maximum capabilities of a WUXGA screen, regardless of type or manufacturer, compared to lower resolution screens' maximum capabilities.

 

Ok, whatever. I'd love to swap the 15.4" WSXGA+ screen in my dv5z for a WUXGA screen. The only practical considerations are the increased power consumption due to higher display clocks, and the greater amount of display memory and bandwidth needed to draw the pixels.

I'm sure some range of displays must be compatible to each other within vendors (and maybe even across vendors). Would love to find a display that I could replace mine with. Any idea how to find out?

 

+1

MUST BE 10 CHARACTERS!

 

That is weird because I have seen many errors in something as simple as the start menu.

There are also lots of people in the Sony Z (13" on 1600*900) thread that were unhappy with Vista scaling.

Fully agree with you there. Anything above 200 cd/m is basically useless for indoors.

Can't agree there. Resolution is not necessarily a measure for display quality. High quality screens come in all kinds of resolutions.

 

I prefer WSXGA+ on a 15 inch screen. WUXGA on a 17 incher IMO.

 

Screenshots of your problems, please. Because after MS rolled IE8, I haven't noticed anything abnormal about font scaling in either the OS itself, or in IE8.

I'll adjust the FAQ if anyone can demonstrate these 'font scaling' errors. And the people running Windows 7 can chime in as to whether the issues persist in Win7.

 

They have been posted in the Sony Z thread. Big thread though.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=272690

I used to believe fontscaling in the OS was perfect too. Until I saw it with my own eyes.

We've had a lot of very similar discussion about this topic in the Sony Z thread.

 

Yeah searching through that thread, trying a bunch of different keywords, but can't find anything substantive, other than people setting wrong resolutions, with predictably blurry results.

I know its a bloated thread...but is there a post or two I should be looking at in particular?

 

I can't remember but I asked for you here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=5137764#post5137764

 

I tried to do the search as well but ended up with nothing. So far most people choose WSXGA+ over WUXGA.

 

For me, WSXGA+ is the minimum for a 15.4" screen. After this point, it's more of a matter of which one is the higher quality screen, in terms of color depth, black levels, viewing angles, etc. I'd gladly take a WUXGA on a 15.4" if the quality is superior.

 

This is a good point. I would settle for a screen with a resolution I didn't like (either too high or too low) if it was a screen that had much better 'quality' than the alternatives - contrast, black levels, etc, all the things mentioned above.

Unfortunately this is something too often neglected by manufacturers - I have seen plenty of high-end notebooks with terrible screens.

 

minhub, have you decided?

 

Hi Serg,

Not yet, but I moving toward WSXGA+ now. Thanks for helping me with all the questions I asked you.

 

No problem! WSXGA+ resolution is very good! And wont be that taxing as a WUXGA.