Why are all the new models with lo-res screens these days?

[noetus]

I have been looking at upgrading my Thinkpads and have been surprised and disturbed by the apparent lack of high-res screens these days.

I have a T61p and an X61 tablet, both of which I bought a couple of years back. The T61p has a 1600x1400 display and the 12" tablet has a 1400x1050 display. I also have another 15" laptop which has a 1900x1200 display that I got a couple of years ago.

I haven't kept up with computer notebook technology over the last two years but coming back to the fray while thinking of upgrading I was assuming that the screen technology would have IMPROVED, not gone backwards. But gone backwards it apparently has. I can't imagine running a lower resolution than I currently have and by jumping two years ahead in technology I was hoping to be able to upgrade and have an even higher resolution. More fool me, apparently!

It appears that on the new 14" T series line the best resolution I can get is LESS than I currently have on my little 12 inch tablet! XGA? Huh? A standard from over 10 years ago?

It's very strange for me - I have been used to printers upping their resolution from 300x300 to 600 and now 1200 pixels per inch and beyond. It is very hard to tell the difference between 600 and 1200 when printing a document, but still the technology has improved. And yet with laptop screens, where you really CAN notice the difference between screens of different pixel density - and it is really huge - we are still stuck with a standard of XGA which as I remember was first introduced on laptops in the late 1990s!!

I can't understand this - technology has improved in every area, by leaps and bounds, and we are stuck with screens with the same resolution as 10 years ago??? Not only with printers, but it is also really strange when you compare it to the pixel increases we've seen with digital cameras. Now these have increased in leaps and bounds too since 10 years ago. I personally think increasing the pixel density in digital cameras beyond a certain point can be counter productive, since you can't see the difference in prints (unless they are very large) and the increased sensitivity to noise makes them actually produce worse pictures in many cases. But it seems manufacturers and consumers are very sensitive to pixel densities in this case, where it is a bit stupid (in my opinion) to be so obsessed, but manufacturers and consumers don't seem to care at all in the case of display screens, where it really is a big benefit to have higher densities - at least higher densities than those we had 10 years ago.

What is going on??? Is there a conspiracy by laptop manufacturers because higher resolution screens are too expensive/troublesome to develop? Are we as consumers just dumb and follow whatever manufacturers tell us to buy and not think/buy for ourselves?

I think I am keeping my T61p and my X61 tablet after all.

[Neil]

First thing I think of is that lower resolution is cheaper to manufacture, and offering lower priced products is the current trend. There are still high end, high res., high dollar systems available.

Second thing is, when you get to my age, eye sight starts to go. I like the desktop area of a high resolution screen, but I can't see well enough to utilize it, without wearing reading glasses (which I find uncomfortable). I'm using a 14.1" XGA Thinkpad right now, and find that the screen resolution is just about right for my eyes.

Seems to me, there are plenty of choices available these days. Anyone should be able to find a laptop that fits there needs.

[ZaZ]

You can get the W500 with WUXGA, but no luck with the tablets. It's too high for me.

[TTY]

Some X200s models have 12.1" WXGA+ (1440*900) panels. Although the resolution for the X200s models is different from your X61 tablet PC, the difference in pixel density between the models is not that big. An X200s with a 12.1" WXGA+ panel has 140 PPI compared to 145 PPI in a X61 Tablet with a 12.1" SXGA+ panel. The T400 series has models with 14,1" WXGA+ (1440*900) panels. The pixel density is 120 PPI, which is significantly higher than 14.1" XGA panels (91 PPI).

[dr_st]

I have a T61p and an X61 tablet, both of which I bought a couple of years back. The T61p has a 1600x1400 display and the 12" tablet has a 1400x1050 display. I also have another 15" laptop which has a 1900x1200 display that I got a couple of years ago.

Come again - 1600x1400? I think you are mistaken, such a screen resolution doesn't exist. The highest resolution for a 14" T61p was 1400x1050, and for a 15.4" wide - 1920x1200.

I haven't kept up with computer notebook technology over the last two years but coming back to the fray while thinking of upgrading I was assuming that the screen technology would have IMPROVED, not gone backwards. But gone backwards it apparently has. I can't imagine running a lower resolution than I currently have and by jumping two years ahead in technology I was hoping to be able to upgrade and have an even higher resolution. More fool me, apparently!

So to you advances in screen technology come down to increasing resolution? Well, then allow me to disappoint you - you are stuck. Resolution is not going to increase. And it's not because it's technologically hard to do. It's just because you can only increase the resolution (and consequently, the PPI) so much before it becomes impractical due to unreadably small print at the standard font size settings. As long as the operating systems foolishly continue to render fonts using pixels and not absolute units like centimeters, increasing resolution beyond a certain practical limit = small text = eyestrain = totally unusable for some people. Heck, to me even 12" SXGA+ would be bordering on too small, although I love my 14"/15" SXGA+ screens.

It appears that on the new 14" T series line the best resolution I can get is LESS than I currently have on my little 12 inch tablet! XGA? Huh? A standard from over 10 years ago?

Where are you getting your specs exactly? XGA? New T series models don't even come at 4:3 screen sizes. Maybe you mean WXGA? If that is the case, then rest assured, as you've been told, there are plenty of WXGA+ screens for 14.1" (and even on some 13.3" and 12.1" machines - X301/X200s). In terms of pixel density, WXGA+ is the widescreen equivalent of SXGA+, although the overall screen estate is lower.

It's very strange for me - I have been used to printers upping their resolution from 300x300 to 600 and now 1200 pixels per inch and beyond. It is very hard to tell the difference between 600 and 1200 when printing a document, but still the technology has improved.

That is because the way printers work is fundamentally different. Or actually it's more like truetype-font applications, such as Word/Adobe, which render text based on absolute units. In such applications, the size of the text depends only on the size of the screen, not the resolution, and so higher resolution will only contribute by making the text sharper, less pixelated. Same with printers. Not same with standard UI elements, basic text-based IDEs, web browsers, etc.

But it seems manufacturers and consumers are very sensitive to pixel densities in this case, where it is a bit stupid (in my opinion) to be so obsessed, but manufacturers and consumers don't seem to care at all in the case of display screens, where it really is a big benefit to have higher densities - at least higher densities than those we had 10 years ago.

The problem is that, again, because of the fundamental flaw in the way operating system render UI elements, you cannot say that higher pixel densities bring only benefits. For most people doing average tasks, low-average resolutions are sufficient, and higher resolutions bring very little advantage, and some very noticeable inconvenience.

I myself consider myself to sit well in the middle. I don't like low-res screens like XGA and WXGA, but at the same time I would stay shy of the super high-res screens as well. My comfort level is probably around 100DPI for desktop LCDs (UXGA on 20") and 125DPI for laptops (SXGA+ on 14"), although I could probably go as high as 110DPI for desktops (if they existed) and 135 for laptops (UXGA on 15").

[phr]

One of my co-workers just got a Blackberry Curve which has 320x240 in a 2.5" screen. He loves its crispness. I don't know how many PPI that is, but scaled up to 15" it would be 1920*1440. The new Nokia N900 internet tablet will have 800x480 in a 3.5" screen. That's even more ppi. It's widescreen format but looks like it would scale to 3428x2057 at 15". More dpi is good, the obstacle to it is cost, power consumption, and the cpu and video bandwidth needed to drive that many pixels. Even the 2560x1600 displays need dual link dvi instead of regular dvi.

[dr_st]

One of my co-workers just got a Blackberry Curve which has 320x240 in a 2.5" screen. He loves its crispness. I don't know how many PPI that is, but scaled up to 15" it would be 1920*1440. The new Nokia N900 internet tablet will have 800x480 in a 3.5" screen. That's even more ppi.

Again, you are talking about devices that obviously do not run standard operating systems and standard text-based UI applications. I dare you to run standard Windows on the N900 and claim that it is just as usable as, say, on the original ASUS EEE (which has the same resolution on an 8.9" screen).

[SaberX]

One of my co-workers just got a Blackberry Curve which has 320x240 in a 2.5" screen. He loves its crispness. I don't know how many PPI that is, but scaled up to 15" it would be 1920*1440. The new Nokia N900 internet tablet will have 800x480 in a 3.5" screen. That's even more ppi. It's widescreen format but looks like it would scale to 3428x2057 at 15". More dpi is good, the obstacle to it is cost, power consumption, and the cpu and video bandwidth needed to drive that many pixels. Even the 2560x1600 displays need dual link dvi instead of regular dvi.

The cheap Nokia 6275i cell phone i have has a 320x240 lcd in a (i think)a 1.8" screen size.Nice clear , sharp pic.

[GomJabbar]

I am also disappointed in the displays offered these days. I love my 14.1" SXGA+ display on my T42. Sadly that resolution is no longer available on the newer models.

Regarding font size, there are several methods to increase it. In Windows XP I set the display to render fonts at 111%. I have also used the option in the Opera browser to set a minimum font size of 12 pixels.

[Zender]

There's one good thing about it, at least for me. With no 14" SXGA+ around, my urge to get a new laptop is very much cooled off

[tomh009]

Three months on, I'm very happy with the 12.1" 1440x900 display in my X200s. I still find that the wide-screen aspect ratio is not used as effectively by many applications (web browsing, word processing etc) but the screen is very bright and very crisp. With the 120 dpi display settings (rather than the 96 dpi default) the UI elements and fonts are quite a reasonable size, even for my no-longer-very-good eyes.

[phr]

[quote="dr_st"][quote="phr"]One of my co-workers just got a Blackberry Curve which has 320x240 in a 2.5" screen. He loves its crispness. I don't know how many PPI that is, but scaled up to 15" it would be 1920*1440. The new Nokia N900 internet tablet will have 800x480 in a 3.5" screen. That's even more ppi.[/quote]Again, you are talking about devices that obviously do not run standard operating systems and standard text-based UI applications. I dare you to run standard Windows on the N900 and claim that it is just as usable as, say, on the original ASUS EEE (which has the same resolution on an 8.9" screen).[/quote]

As a Linux user I don't have any interest in running Windows on the N900 or on any other machine. If Windows doesn't have enough font flexibility to let you configure good readable fonts on a 150 (or higher) dpi screen, that's a problem with Windows, not a problem with the screen. Get on the phone with Microsoft and tell them to fix the problem

[mattbiernat]

Why are all the new models with lo-res screens these days?

because people like me are going blind.... sorry i couldn't help

[tomh009]

because people like me are going blind.... sorry i couldn't help

Yeah, me too. : (

And yet I have this crazy X200s and now also working on a T61 at 1400x1050. My poor eyes ...

[ZaZ]

Yeah, I like the nice 115 PPI on my 15" SXGA+ R60. It's not too small or too big.

[Temetka]

While I do miss the SXGA resolution of my older T41p (now gone), on my 15" T60 XGA is quite nice. It doesn't strain my eyes and looks pretty good. That being said I still want to upgrade the LCD to SXGA because I am 34 and my eyes are still working within design specs. I won't upgrade the LCD on the unit until I get a planar with a real GPU as I am currently using the Intel GPU and while decent, it leaves me wanting.

[Karakasa]

Higher resolutions on notebooks were the worst idea I've ever come across: What's the purpose of increasing resolution when the screen size doesn't? I would already need a bloody magnifier on my T400 if Windows didn't allow me to increase font-DPI. In fact, the new option for the new continous DPI-scaling is what I appreciate Windows 7 the most for.

[Puppy]

What's the purpose of increasing resolution when the screen size doesn't?

Useability. I need to display as high as possible amount of text on the screen. The more visible lines of text, the higher resolution, the better.

[j-dawg]

I love the screen on the X61t: 1400x1050 in a 12" IPS screen. It's not very bright, but indoors it is absolutely fabulous.

[lophiomys]

Higher resolutions on notebooks were the worst idea I've ever come across: What's the purpose of increasing resolution when the screen size doesn't? ....

It is to protect your eyes. There is alway to increase font size in every OS or APP
Text display with smooth edges saves your eyes, that's also valid for big text on
laptop screens, as the screen will always stay near to your eyes.
The display of my 133dpi 1600x1200 UXGA screens is so brilliant, that can't go back to any of
those crappy TN LCD in current laptop models. You just constantly realize the drop in display quality.

[dr_st]

It is to protect your eyes. There is alway to increase font size in every OS or APP

Which never works with 100% success, and sometimes is downright unsatisfactory. And once you start struggling with it, your choice is either to limit usability or to stay with tiny text, which at some point becomes too tiny to help, and actually increases eye strain.
Text display with smooth edges saves your eyes, that's also valid for big text on
laptop screens, as the screen will always stay near to your eyes.

The display of my 133dpi 1600x1200 UXGA screens is so brilliant, that can't go back to any of
those crappy TN LCD in current laptop models. You just constantly realize the drop in display quality.

This has more to do with IPS vs TN, than with the DPI. Otherwise, the WUXGA 15.4" panels would rock the world.