A question about screen resolution

Message

jotong · #1 Post by **jotong** » Tue May 25, 2004 4:14 pm

Right now, I own a t30 with a 14 inch screen and XGA resolution. I'm looking to buy a new laptop, either the t41p or the 23739FU t41 model, but with the 1.7ghz processor, IBM only makes screens with SXGA resolution. I'm quite comfortable with my XGA resolution right now on a 14 inch screen, and am worried that SXGA might make things too small to be comfortable for every day usage. At the same time, however, I would rather not get a lower-end model just for the XGA screen.

Has anyone experience problems with the higher resolution on a 14 inch screen? If it comfortable for everyday usage? I'd really appreciate any opinions.

awolfe63 · #2 Post by **awolfe63** » Tue May 25, 2004 4:20 pm

I use it every day on a top of the line T23. I'm very happy with it.

Conmee · #3 Post by **Conmee** » Tue May 25, 2004 4:36 pm

SXGA+ on a 14" is borderline... some people like it, some think it's too small to read. I think it's the best resolution for a 14" screen... the clarity and desktop space are well worth it.

Daniel

cobac · #4 Post by **cobac** » Tue May 25, 2004 6:24 pm

It takes a little getting used to but its worth it. For a lot of clients that have difficulty in seeing with these SXGA+ machines I just adjust the DPI and icon sizes up and they love it...

As a comparison, my dell precision M60 that I'm returning @ SXGA+ seems even worse to see than the IBM SXGA+...

cynic · #5 Post by **cynic** » Tue May 25, 2004 8:23 pm

Isn't that Dell M60 a 15.4" widescreen? That's pretty poor if WSXGA+ looks worse on it than any 14.1" showing SXGA+.

breakfixit · #6 Post by **breakfixit** » Fri May 28, 2004 9:18 am

Get the SXGA. I have it on my T30. The extra space is wonderful. My eyes aren't perfect, but not bad enough to need help with them, yet. I never have a problem reading the screen on my T30.

Leon · #7 Post by **Leon** » Fri May 28, 2004 10:44 am

Cobac (or anyone)... if I adjust the DPI and icon sizes on an SXGA+ 14" screen as you suggest, does that increase stay consistant across applications? Is it then visually equivalent to having an XGA screen? Is there a downside to doing this? I need XGA for eyesight, but want a 9600 for graphics/games......

csv96 · #8 Post by **csv96** » Fri May 28, 2004 11:38 am

jotong wrote:...but with the 1.7ghz processor, IBM only makes screens with SXGA resolution

You're in luck. Try the new T42 2373-6ZU (http://www-306.ibm.com/pc/support/site. ... ry=23736zu). Other than having a 40gb 5400rpm drive instead of a 60gb 7200rpm drive, it's exactly what you're looking for. Email Bill for a price.

Leon · #9 Post by **Leon** » Fri May 28, 2004 11:53 am

but still has the low end graphics processor...

csv96 · #10 Post by **csv96** » Fri May 28, 2004 12:09 pm

IBM doesn't offer anything but the ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 with XGA screens. If you want the Mobility Radeon 9000/9600/FireGL/FireGL-T2, it'll have to be with an SXGA+ or UXGA model.

akerman · #11 Post by **akerman** » Fri May 28, 2004 12:32 pm

cynic wrote:Isn't that Dell M60 a 15.4" widescreen? That's pretty poor if WSXGA+ looks worse on it than any 14.1" showing SXGA+.

Nah.. the pixel density on wsxga+ @ 15.4" is higher than on sxga+ @ 14.1", so that's perfectly normal.

Leon · #12 Post by **Leon** » Fri May 28, 2004 12:47 pm

yeah, but thats my problem... I want 14" for size/weight, XGA for my eyes, and a good graphichs processor......

Conmee · #13 Post by **Conmee** » Fri May 28, 2004 2:41 pm

akerman wrote:
cynic wrote:Isn't that Dell M60 a 15.4" widescreen? That's pretty poor if WSXGA+ looks worse on it than any 14.1" showing SXGA+.
Nah.. the pixel density on wsxga+ @ 15.4" is higher than on sxga+ @ 14.1", so that's perfectly normal.

Technically, that's not correct. The wider screen simply accomodates more pixels along the horizontal axis, but pixel pitch remains the same on a 15.4" widescreen v. a 14" standard screen. And of course, the vertical axis still measures 1050 pixels on both SXGA+ and WSXGA+.

The reason the scaling down looks worse on a WSXGA+ is because all "W" or widescreen LCDs are 16:10 display ratio v. 4:3 for standard non-wide LCDs. Because 1400x1050, 1600x1200, and 1024x768 are all in 4:3, they scale better between the resolutions. When a 4:3 screen tries to scale to 16:10 or SXGA (5:4, the oddball of the group, yet considered "standard" by many) the scaling looks horrible. Same goes for trying to scale to 1024x768 on a 16:10 screen. Hence, it's the display ratio which tends to govern how good/bad a LCD scaled resolution looks, for the most part.

Daniel.

cynic · #14 Post by **cynic** » Fri May 28, 2004 3:19 pm

I believe akerman is right. Though the pixel pitch is the same, the Dell LCD panel is using a slightly smaller pixel to fit that many pixels in the surface area. It isn't trying to scale a different proportion or "stretch" an image... graphics cards support the 16:10 ratios just fine; giving you more desktop space.

In thousand pixels per square inch (K PPI):
the WSXGA+ 15.4" Dell has 16.55K PPI
the SXGA+ 14.1" T4x has 15.4K PPI

It's a slight difference, but there is definitely a higher density of pixels on the Dell. (7.4% more dense)

Isaac000 · #15 Post by **Isaac000** » Fri May 28, 2004 4:00 pm

Look, I don't understand the problem with this screen pixel density with XGA vs. SXGA, or SXGA+ or whatever.

High pixel density = good.
Small print = bad

BUT, hey people you can change the font size. Whether you're using Windows or OS/2 or Linux, you can blow up the font sizes on the desktop or most other applications (including the menu or help screens or whatever) to something that you can read even without glasses at 5 m away.
In Windows, I believe you can even blow up the Icon sizes to be larger than normal if you want.

I have a T40p with the very nice screen 1400x1050 , 14.1", I have no problems with the default settings. Your eyes may vary, but go change the settings then!

geobel · #16 Post by **geobel** » Fri May 28, 2004 6:44 pm

I would not go for resolution higher than XGA on 14 inch screen...

Gosha

cynic · #17 Post by **cynic** » Fri May 28, 2004 7:47 pm

geobel wrote:I would not go for resolution higher than XGA on 14 inch screen...

Gosha

Is that what your T laptops are? I personally can't deal with how big XGA looks on a 14.1

akerman · #18 Post by **akerman** » Sat May 29, 2004 8:10 am

Thanks for explaining that for me, cynic =)

Isac000 - while you can turn op font sizes, icons and such, you still can't enlarge certain programs and websites that use images to display text. And if you're going to enlarge everything anyways, what's the point of having a higher resolution :>

dclee012 · #19 Post by **dclee012** » Sat May 29, 2004 9:38 am

i found 14" at 1400x1050 a little straining. acceptable, but straining. the 15" 1400x1050 is a perfect compromise for me.

Conmee · #20 Post by **Conmee** » Sat May 29, 2004 2:59 pm

cynic wrote:I believe akerman is right. Though the pixel pitch is the same, the Dell LCD panel is using a slightly smaller pixel to fit that many pixels in the surface area. It isn't trying to scale a different proportion or "stretch" an image... graphics cards support the 16:10 ratios just fine; giving you more desktop space.

In thousand pixels per square inch (K PPI):
the WSXGA+ 15.4" Dell has 16.55K PPI
the SXGA+ 14.1" T4x has 15.4K PPI

It's a slight difference, but there is definitely a higher density of pixels on the Dell. (7.4% more dense)

Cynic,

My bad...

I checked the Dell site, since they list all the pertinent info for the various LCDs. Looks like the 14" SXGA+ has .204mm pitch, while 15.4" WSXGA+ has a slightly smaller .197mm pitch, making it, as I know now... higher density. lol However, I still think the 15" SXGA+ on my RMA'd T42 was perfect, with a .217 pitch... a nice happy medium and easy on the eyes.

As for the display ratios, I think it makes a BIG difference if you are trying to scale to a different ratio resolution. Just try looking at the difference between 1280x1024 (SXGA 5:4) v. 1024x768 (XGA 4:3) on a T Series with a 1400x1050 screen. It's noticeably worse trying to scale to SXGA v. XGA. The graphics and text seem vertically elongated because your trying to fit a 5:4 resolution on a 4:3 screen. Not that it can't do it, but it just looks awkward. And I think that's due to the fact that although the graphic chip can scale fine, the fixed size and ratio of the pixels themselves determine the quality of the scaling. A step further, trying to get XGA to look decent on a widescreen just looks plain bad compared to XGA scaled on a standard screen. Unless you want to live with black borders around the screen... IMHO. lol

Daniel.

Conmee · #21 Post by **Conmee** » Sat May 29, 2004 3:01 pm

dclee012 wrote:i found 14" at 1400x1050 a little straining. acceptable, but straining. the 15" 1400x1050 is a perfect compromise for me.

Ditto here... I think the 15" 1400x1050 is the perfect combo... especially when there aren't any stuck/dead pixels. lol

Daniel.

DrGrafix · #22 Post by **DrGrafix** » Sat May 29, 2004 8:45 pm

Having used the 1400 X 1050 resolution on my T21 for quite some time, I'd have to give it the nod as my favorite, and a lot of my use was with Corel, Photoshop, Visio, and PowerPoint. OTH, if your eyes are not great you might find it a little weird. I don't get involved with gaming on a notebook, so I can't address the refresh rate issue, but a long time ago I took James' advice and maxed out the ram, then installed a faster HDD with a bigger cache, and then as a last resort... I upgraded the cpu from an 850 to a 1 Gig. For those that might think the cpu swap was dumb... I sold the 850 for $5 more than the 1 Gig cpu cost me with shipping! It was just a matter of being in the right place at the right time and jumping on the faster cpu when it was available.

Mike

bert · #23 Post by **bert** » Mon May 31, 2004 3:21 am

Has anyone come across a good "tutorial" on how to best set up XP for a small highres screen (like 1600x1200 on a 15" T42)?

There are several parameters to play wirth: dpi settings, large fonts, large icons, cleartype, etc...

I need the high resolution in some applications, but generally prefer larger text than default. Every combination of settings that I have tried to increase font size has had resulted in some problems or limitations.

#24 Post by **aamsel** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:02 am

It doesn't exist in an IBM, in fact those configurations barely exist in any brand. The closest I have found to what you want is a custom-config'ed HP nc6000 with XGA and a 64MB 9600. How good it is, I have no idea.
Again, in IBM they just don't sell those features. I had decided to move up to a 15" T42 with Flexview, but the talk about response time of the screens now has me wary of getting one. People say that you can turn up the DPI to the larger or even the custom setting, but any way you slice it, some stuff still is smaller. I can get the icons big, the Windows font larger, set the Internet Explorer fonts to largest, but, for example when I go to this forum, and type a post, the font I am typing in is smaller. So, I want exactly what you want, but I have not been able to find it (except with the HP).
Andrew
Austin, TX

Leon wrote:yeah, but thats my problem... I want 14" for size/weight, XGA for my eyes, and a good graphichs processor......

#25 Post by **aamsel** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:06 am

See my post above. I have had the same problems.
Example:
I used to run my desktop Samsung 191T at non-native 1024X768. Great text size, not perfectly clear, a pinch fuzzy. Now I have it at its native 1280X1024 with large DPI, normal fonts, etc. but as I am typing right here it is smaller, period. And, yes, I have Internet Explorer's text size set to largest. No difference. I don't really know what to do about it.
Andrew
Austin, TX

bert wrote:Has anyone come across a good "tutorial" on how to best set up XP for a small highres screen (like 1600x1200 on a 15" T42)?

There are several parameters to play wirth: dpi settings, large fonts, large icons, cleartype, etc...

I need the high resolution in some applications, but generally prefer larger text than default. Every combination of settings that I have tried to increase font size has had resulted in some problems or limitations.

roblim · #26 Post by **roblim** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:38 am

In Internet Explorer set the text size to medium but under Tools --> Internet Options --> Accessibility --> check "Ignore Font sizes".

#27 Post by **aamsel** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:49 am

Thanks, that is "better" but it still seems a little weird for some reason.
Andrew
Austin, TX

Isaac000 · #28 Post by **Isaac000** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:20 pm

akerman wrote:Thanks for explaining that for me, cynic =)

Isac000 - while you can turn op font sizes, icons and such, you still can't enlarge certain programs and websites that use images to display text. And if you're going to enlarge everything anyways, what's the point of having a higher resolution :>

Websites -> Use a browser than _can_ scale images. Firefox, Opera..., they're way better than IE anyways.

Programs that use graphics to display text _and_ don't scale....? Maybe you ought to find another one, unless this particular one has got a stranglehold on the market. Or skip to a lower resolution when doing this then.

What's the point in having a 1200DPI printer if you're going to print out big pictures.... pixel density counts for rendering quality

Ultimately, I guess it's a personal preference. But make sure you make the choice based on GOOD FACTS! Too many people don't even realize that you can scale the icons, fonts, etc. in most programs and browsers to make things nicely readable.

cynic · #29 Post by **cynic** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:57 pm

Isaac000 wrote: Websites -> Use a browser than _can_ scale images. Firefox, Opera..., they're way better than IE anyways.

Programs that use graphics to display text _and_ don't scale....? Maybe you ought to find another one, unless this particular one has got a stranglehold on the market. Or skip to a lower resolution when doing this then.

You still can't scale flash/shockwave stuff.

(BTW, competely endorse FireFox over all others)

akerman · #30 Post by **akerman** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 3:30 am

I know there are still a lot of unresolved issues with scaling things.. I don't recall exactly what they are anymore though, because I'm not fiddling with font settings etc myself, as I am fine with the SXGA+ resolution on mine

Btw - how do you scale images and not just text in firefox? I can't seem to find that option anywhere (firefox 0.

.

A question about screen resolution

A question about screen resolution

Re: A question about screen resolution

What's the problem?

Who is online