14" vs 15" SXGA+

I'm posting this just to express my opinion on the 14" vs 15" SXGA+ debate. My old notebook is a P3 700 Compaq with a 15" SXGA+ screen, and when ordering this new notebook, I knew I wanted that resolution. In the interim, I had an Inspiron with a 15" UXGA screen, which made the fonts way too small. And, NO, changing the DPI in Windows does NOT solve the problem. Don't believe the people who claim it does. Some programs, system fonts, web pages, will not respond to the Windows font size or the IE font size. My old notebooks, both of them, were heavy as hell and not at all pleasant when taking them on a 20 minute walk plus subway rides etc to and from work. Plus, the Dell's keyboard was so horrible I could not touch type on it properly. So: I needed an SXGA+ screen (for academic writing), a good keyboard, and light weight. The only choice was the T42. But what size, 14 or 15"?

After reading everything I could find on the web, and doing the calculations people do of pixels per square inch, etc., I came to the conclusion that 14" SXGA+, while more dense than 15" SXGA+, was only half as much more dense than 15" UXGA, and I thought I could live with that. Considering that it was .7 or .8 lbs lighter than the 15" SXGA+, and $300 cheaper, I thought it was worth it. I was wrong.

The font size was just too small. It's OK if it's on a desk, at more or less eye level, but put it on your lap, on battery power (when not fully backlit), with ambient light coming in from windows and making reflections (which seem worse on this screen than on my dell or compaq), and you WILL HAVE TO SQUINT, peer a little more closely, lean in. For a work machine, that's just not OK. IBM's 15" SXGA+ has the flexview, too, which improves brightness and viewing angles.

I am 31, and my vision is fine (with glasses or contacts for nearsightedness). If you need reading glasses, don't even think about 14" SXGA+.

Another myth: Word processing is greatly improved by high resolution screens. You can see more of the document you're working on, you can see another document (notes, sources, other drafts) side by side, without cascading or overlapping (not quite possible with regular SXGA (1280x1024)). People often claim that only programmers, gamers, people who work with spreadsheets, or graphic artists need high resolutions. They treat word processing as a low-end computer task, not worthy of premium computer components. They do not understand. 1024x768 may be OK for business memos, letters, and so forth, but it's not OK for academic writing.

So much for the rant, but I wanted to save others from the perils and temptation of the 14" SXGA+.

I'll post my impressions on the T42's 15" SXGA+ when it gets here in two weeks.

 

I could not agree more.
Changing the DPI or font size is windows is just not the same and does not make up a display that has too high a resolution for it's size. I think you will find that the SXGA+ (1400x1050)goes very well with a 15" display. I almost bought mine with the 14" (1400x1050), but was worried that 1400x1050 would be too much for a 14" display. Luckily I found one at work and I was right, it was too much for me. I think some will like it, most would like myself find the font size too small and resolution too much.

Jack

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" (Ben Franklin)
http://pbase.com/joneill

 

I find the 15" SXGA+ to be ideal for word processing for exactly the reasons you cited. For me, that's worth the tradeoff of smaller web images.

 

My dilemma is still the following: I like the size of the T42 with the 14'1" screen and would really appreciate to have the option/flexibility of switching between SXGA and XGA resolutions depending on what program I use (image/video editing software vs. word processing or strategy games). However I have read the following user's opinion on a forum:

"I was disappointed to discover that the display is not very sharp in 1024 mode because it is optimized for 1400 mode. In fact my screen in 1024 looks worse than the XGA 1024 screen -- this according to IBM tech support. But the screen looks crystal clear in 1400 mode."

Is the image quality that bad when set to 1024x768? Or is it still a realistic option in case the SXGA resolution is too high?