Why aren't all notebook screens sunlight-readable?

This question is, I believe, mildly technical.

I have an old Sony Clie PEG-TJ35 handheld computer made in, I believe, 2003. I don't really use it much anymore but it was a nice handheld. One thing I particularly appreciated about it (though this is not uncommon) is that the screen is very clear by backlight, and when outside, perfectly clear by sunlight--in fact, sunlight actually brings out a vividness that the backlight alone can't manage, and I can save battery life by just turning the backlight off.

The screen is, if I recall correctly, 65,000 colors, 320x320. It's got a refresh rate good enough for videos.

So, my question is, if a piece of 2003 hardware has such a versatile screen, why doesn't my 2010 notebook have something similar? Or any 2010 notebook, for that matter? Is it a problem with the size or something? I'm sure it's not a general quality issue, because my Clie's screen is just as bright and readable as the day I got it.

 

I sure would like to see that too--notebooks whose screens could easily be read in direct sunlight, without squinting and difficulty.

As notebooks are used all over the place, outside as well as inside, I don't know why this is not common.

Are there any notebook screens today that can easily be read in sunlight? What kind? Used on which notebooks?

Do any of the aftermarket "screen protectors" work to make the screen daylight readable?

 

I've been asking that question to myself alot lately. When you think about it, its one of the few things about a portable computer display that really matters. You can mark a display down for having flat colours, crappy viewing angles, blacks that are really greys and whites that are kind of yellow but you can't beat the daddy of them all:

'I'm looking straight at my screen and the only thing I can see is MY OWN FACE.'

 

Probably because the brightness of the sun > the brightness of your back lit display.

 

It just depends on if you want a matte or glossy screen, some people want one that they can take outside in the sun light others however want one that is brighter and has better colours. So the market took care of both of them.

 

It's probably a matter of costs. A display suited for working in the sun should be about 400 nits bright. Common notebook screens are about 200 nits.

 

And this is then compounded by the fact that, to make up for the fact that the screens aren't as bright, they make them glossy, to make the contrast stand out more. This, of course, backfires when you take them outside and the brighter outside light starts reflecting off the glossy coating. In the end, really, a lot of it is the push to cut costs by using cheaper screens. Good screens for outdoor use are more expensive.

 

Reminds me that 20 years ago my Samsung 386 laptop with b\w screen was very readable in the sun.

 

'Money'.

Manufacturers are not exactly crazy about giving people latest technology for lower prices.
They prefer selling us stuff that's easier for them to create/get at an inflated cost with the 'real value' lost in obscurity for the most part.

Profit is the main drive behind manufacturers motives.
But, there are instances where the customers wake up briefly enough to realize they are being scammed.
So they cry out, complain, even threaten, and that's when you suddenly see the shift in production.

Granted, they are only giving you the next 'revision' that improves things marginally (to us it's a big difference from a visual point of view ... from a technological one, it's so minor it's not even funny).

 

I think the kind of sunlight-readable display the OP is talking about can actually use the ambient light and reflect it to get the brightness up to the required level. They're called reflective displays, I think, but I don't know much else about them. I also seem to recall that some devices have been sold that can switch between a reflective and a backlit mode.

 

Laptops aren't going to be mandated as sunlight-readable when cell phones aren't even readable in direct sunlight for the most part. You're more likely to nee a phone when you're outdoors than a laptop too.

A lot of people only use their laptops indoors. I'd hazard a guess that maybe 10-15% of laptop owners use their notebook outside (beside a window doesn't count).

 

I'll believe that money plays a part, and that the bureaucracy of the laptop industry (not to mention the stupidity of the average consumer) play a part, but I'm wondering, what is the difference between these types of displays, technically speaking? Is the reflective one actually more expensive to produce?

People are talking about the brightness needed to be sunlight-readable, and the cost of such bright displays--read the topic more carefully. I have a device that I got for under two hundred dollars almost eight years ago, with a screen that was perfectly clear using the backlight. When I took it outside and turned the backlight off, it became even clearer.

Think of any Nintendo handheld (well, the GameBoy Color and Advance at least--I don't recall whether the DS was the same). The colors were always the most vivid when the sun was shining on them.

 

Oh you mean transreflective. Toshiba R500 used to have them. They have very poor contrast but they're extremely well visible in sunlight.

Tests - Toshiba Portégé R500 SSD-Version - 800 Gramm für 3000 Euro auf notebookjournal.de

 

Pixel Qi - See our Blog for latest about Pixel Qi

They only have a 10" screen so far though.

 

Ah, yes, that's what I was thinking about. Thanks for the pointer! There was also a Tablet PC slate from Motion Computing that used this technology as well. They have stopped selling consumer products for now, I think.