Thinkpads Forum

I feel like I have made a grave mistake by buying this super high-res, dim display. I didn't know that, for technical reasons, screens looked blurry if you didn't utilize their highest possible resolution! I thought I could always go down on the resolution if its too small; not so, unless you're okay with real ugly blurry graphics...So, I don't wanna decrease the resolution.

I tried increasing the DPI, but there is something strange, I don't understand with the DPI settings. Windows Vista dialogs, fonts, and fonts of other applications seem to be affected by the DPI settings, except the browsing window (the browser toolbars, etc, are affected. Only the browsing window is not). That is, until I hit 150% increase on 96 DPI, which is 144 pixels per inch. At that DPI, Firefox explodes! Everything is so unbearably huge: the toolbars, the menus, and the browsing window is like 800 X 600 res! Is there an explanation for this or is something messed up?

How do you guys browse with your WUXGA capable W500s?

Thanks,

I replied to your other thread. Indeed, small changes of the DPI don´t affect FF. However, you can change the fonts and objects size within FF. FF3 seem to very well deal with such changes. So, if the increase in DPI makes everything else usable to you, you only need to adjust the sizes separately in FF3.

I have a WUXGA screen and I don´t have any problems browsing the web. I don´t do any size adjustments and with this resolution I can see quite a lot from the page. I have to admit, in the very beginning I had to get used to it. Later it is really hard to go to a lower resolution (or DPI if you change the screen size).

From the Firefox toolbar, select View --> Zoom --> Zoom In. Repeat until you are satisfied. You may also wish to uncheck the View --> Zoom --> Zoom Text Only option.

Or as keyboard shortcuts: ctrl + or ctrl -

I found this Firefox add-on to be very useful: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/2592

It locks the zoom level. I set the default zoom level at 120%. Not an ideal solution in my opinion, but I don't see another alternative.

You don't say what OS you are using. I have a T61p with Vista Business 64-bit with 1400x1050 native resolution. I pushed it down to 1280x1024 and it works very well (not blurry). I think this is one of the few things that you can do with Vista that cannot be done with XP.

I'm using Vista Business 32-bit.

My 15" T60p is 1600x1200 & my 15" T60 is 1400x1050. I agree that the higher resolution does display smaller text, icons, etc & can be hard on the eyes without using the built in Firefox font sizing tool.
.
However that said, the most disturbing trend that Lenovo seems to be maintaining is their refusal to offer high quality displays, in keeping with what the competition offers. The LED backlit 300nit displays like the gorgeous display of the new unibody MacBook Pro, are so far superior. And yet that display is hampered by the highly reflective glass front.
.
I just ordered a new fully loaded W500, but after recently seeing how dim and bland the display is on a friends, I'm giving serious consideration to canceling my order....a huge disappointment to this ThinkPad lover. If I had just one suggestion for Lenovo it would be to focus on offering excellent displays with bright LED backlights, throughout their ThinkPad lineup. Especially with their top of the line T & W series. Ironically my $300 IdeaPad S10 netbook has an LED backlit display that puts the CCFL units to shame. Where I used to get excited at the thought of buying a new ThinkPad, that has now become a discouraging proposition with the mediocre displays they offer.
.
Cheers

I have to agree that it´s a pity that Lenovo doesn´t offer their high res 15.4'' screens with LED backlits. It wouldn´t compensate for the screen quality though...

What is the story about these W machines? The specs say TFT-CCFL Backlight for both W and T series. This is the same as my T61p. I downshifted from 1400x1050 to 1280x1024 keeping the same aspect ratio and it looks fine. There is a very subtle blur from one line to the next, but nothing to stop me from using it for hours on end. And in no way can it be called really ugly and blurry.

What is different from what I have and these W series?

Thanks, .... JDH

Unlike all the W series, you T61p has a 4:3 aspect ratio screen. The W series are available with WUXGA res. Only W700 has a LED backlit though (actually 4 of them). The other differences are those coming from the new Montevina platform and different graphics. Still I wouldn´t say that there is much of a gain from T61p to W500, on the contrary, W500 is not available in 4:3...

The issue I am looking for clarification on is resolution, not aspect ratio. Aspect ratio doesn't affect resolution does it? Do the newer machines have fewer pixels or something? Why are they described as dim, poor, blurry and worse, and have a significant number of people agreeing with this. One person in this thread is looking at cancelling their order.

I have a T41 with native 1024x768 screen. I used it for 5 years successfully. Now when I turn it on, it looks grainy (although crystal clear) and that is because it is grainy compared to my T61p.

So I still do not understand "....unless you're okay with real ugly blurry graphics"
... JDH

jdhurst wrote:What is the story about these W machines? The specs say TFT-CCFL Backlight for both W and T series. This is the same as my T61p. I downshifted from 1400x1050 to 1280x1024 keeping the same aspect ratio and it looks fine. There is a very subtle blur from one line to the next, but nothing to stop me from using it for hours on end. And in no way can it be called really ugly and blurry.

What is different from what I have and these W series?

Thanks, .... JDH

I guess another person could tolerate the quality of the picture on this W500 at a lower, non-native resolution. But I didn't buy this laptop ready to accept its flaws. This was a major purchase for me and I wanted a desktop replacement that will be my main work-station.

@JDH: I get your point (I think I do ). I think you are actually referring to 2 different things.

The image on a screen with resolution set to lower than its native one is not as sharp and clear as before. The higher the native resolution of the screen is, the bigger this difference is. My guess is you don´t see that much of a difference because your native resolution is SXGA and not WUXGA. What is more, the wide form factor always has more pixels than its corresponding standard aspect ratio screen, hence lowering the resolution of a wide screen results in the "loss" of more pixels than it would do with the standard screen. Hence the image degradation on wide screens (when lowering the resolution) is higher than on the corresponding standard screens. In the end, this is also a matter of personal preferences. The image quality decrease with the lower resolution is not W-series-specific. The same would occur with a WUXGA T61p. I believe "....unless you're okay with real ugly blurry graphics" is referring to exactly this effect.

Regarding the complaints of people about the screens of the W500, W500 (WUXGA and WSXGA) screens are just as awful (or good, depending on the speaking person) as the WUXGA or WSXGA screen of the T61p. There is really no difference. I think we hear more complaints because the W series were, among other things, advertised as photographer models (not only W700) more or less, or powerful workstations. A good screen is simply a must-have for a workstation.

Marin

I thought I'll connect the laptop to my beautiful 20" Dell LCD with its 1680x1050 native-res and work mainly from there. Then, I'll just unplug as needed. This way I'll be using the bad built-in display only part of the time. But even that I couldn't accomplish. I managed to install the Dell drivers and get "1680x1050" but the picture couldn't be more messed up. It's blurry, flickery, and out of proportion.

I'm having no luck in switching my work to this new laptop. I've decided to get rid of it regardless of how much money I lose in the transaction. I'm done wasting my time with it. I'll probably be looking at Dells next. At least Dell is efficient, offers competitive prices and is honest about being consumer oriented.

jdhurst wrote:What is the story about these W machines? The specs say TFT-CCFL Backlight for both W and T series. This is the same as my T61p. I downshifted from 1400x1050 to 1280x1024 keeping the same aspect ratio and it looks fine. There is a very subtle blur from one line to the next, but nothing to stop me from using it for hours on end. And in no way can it be called really ugly and blurry.

What is different from what I have and these W series?

There is nothing different. The difference is in... you.

Non-native resolution makes text look "ugly and blurry" on any LCD and any operating system. Contrary to a popular misconception, Vista does not help here, because software in general has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the LCD having to perform an interpolation to match between the lower resolution and the higher number of physical pixels.

However, as with all things - not all people are equally sensitive to it! "Ugly and blurry" are generally, subjective terms. I know quite a few people at work that constantly run their 1400x1050 LCDs at 1280x1024. The reason? It matches their 19" 1280x1024 desktop LCDs. And none of them ever complained that it's blurry, even though it is. They just aren't bothered by it and don't pay attentition.

1280x1024 isn't even the same aspect as 1400x1050, and yet neither you nor my colleagues are bothered by it (because the difference is slight). Just like all the people running their old 4:3 CRT monitors at 1280x1024, which is 5:4.

Personally, I wouldn't be able to work with downscaling 1400x1050 to 1280x1024. It really does look like crap to me. In fact, because it's so close to the native, the interpolation is more difficult, and you get identical text lines which differ from one another in height and clarity. It's really noticeable and causes more long-term eyestrain than the slightly smaller text.

msafi wrote:I guess another person could tolerate the quality of the picture on this W500 at a lower, non-native resolution. But I didn't buy this laptop ready to accept its flaws. This was a major purchase for me and I wanted a desktop replacement that will be my main work-station.

I totally understand you and my heart aches for your problem, because I know how frustrating it might be to spend a lot of money on something which is considered premium, and finding out that it does not suit your needs.

I would never buy a 15.4" with WUXGA or recommend it to anyone, without a word of warning. Some people like them, most can adjust, and some just can't. I am fine with SXGA+ on 14.1" (124DPI). I might be fine with UXGA on 15" (133DPI), but I doubt I would enjoy WUXGA on 15.4" (147DPI). And messing with DPI/font sizes never quite looks right, and besides what's the point? By increasing text size, you lose the advantage of the extra screen real estate which is the reason to go for a high resolution in the first place!

msafi wrote:I thought I'll connect the laptop to my beautiful 20" Dell LCD with its 1680x1050 native-res and work mainly from there. Then, I'll just unplug as needed. This way I'll be using the bad built-in display only part of the time. But even that I couldn't accomplish. I managed to install the Dell drivers and get "1680x1050" but the picture couldn't be more messed up. It's blurry, flickery, and out of proportion.

I assume you are connecting through VGA, right? Did you perform "Auto Adjustment" on the DELL display? It is very important when connecting VGA for the first time, as it adjust the signal to the correct phase/duration/etc, which typically eliminates the problems you mentioned.

msafi wrote:I'm having no luck in switching my work to this new laptop. I've decided to get rid of it regardless of how much money I lose in the transaction. I'm done wasting my time with it. I'll probably be looking at Dells next. At least Dell is efficient, offers competitive prices and is honest about being consumer oriented.

Uhm, your frustration with just this laptop may be justified, but I am not convinced that you should blame all of Lenovo... Their prices now are no less competitive than DELL's (in fact, often more so, when you compare apples to apples, i.e. business models to bussiness models, consumer to consumer). Needless to say that whenever you go for something clearly marketed as a high-end workstation model, you shouldn't talk about competitive prices at all.

I understand your bitterness, and I just think you it comes from the fact that you got a laptop that wasn't right for you. I assure you that if you had gotten, say, a DELL Precision with the same LCD, you would be just as disappointed now. Every manufacturer has a long list of models and series, of every flavor. The trick is to choose the specs and features that suit you.

dr_st wrote:Non-native resolution makes text look "ugly and blurry" on any LCD and any operating system. Contrary to a popular misconception, Vista does not help here, because software in general has nothing to do with it.

I wasn´t aware of the existence of such misconception I believe what Vista seems to handle very well is the synthetic increase in DPI (under display properties). Hence, with Vista OS installed, I don´t see any need for lowering the resolution. BTW, Win 7 seems to be really flawless here, even IE8 is affected by DPI changes, so browsing becomes again comfortable in high res screens

dr_st wrote:I totally understand you and my heart aches for your problem, because I know how frustrating it might be to spend a lot of money on something which is considered premium, and finding out that it does not suit your needs.

Thank you for your empathy

dr_st wrote:I assume you are connecting through VGA, right? Did you perform "Auto Adjustment" on the DELL display? It is very important when connecting VGA for the first time, as it adjust the signal to the correct phase/duration/etc, which typically eliminates the problems you mentioned.

I didn't perform "Auto Adjustment." I'll explore this with my next laptop.

dr_st wrote:Needless to say that whenever you go for something clearly marketed as a high-end workstation model, you shouldn't talk about competitive prices at all.

Yeah, when shopping for a high-end item, obviously a person's gonna be less price-conscious. But price is almost always an important factor of a buying decision and perception of quality after buying.

dr_st wrote:I understand your bitterness, and I just think you it comes from the fact that you got a laptop that wasn't right for you. I assure you that if you had gotten, say, a DELL Precision with the same LCD, you would be just as disappointed now. Every manufacturer has a long list of models and series, of every flavor. The trick is to choose the specs and features that suit you.

Of course, if I was cheated by Dell, I would harbor negative feelings toward them, although they would be different type of negative feelings. I would expect something like this from Dell with it being a budget brand. But, when I buy a ThinkPad, I expect the best in the industry. It's a brand that I used to be loyal to. That's why with ThinkPad, I feel let down and cheated.

I think Lenovo is milking the ThinkPad brand for all its worth. They are charging ThinkPad prices while neglecting the not-so-bottom-line-friendly philosophy that IBM ascribed to. Lenovo is killing the legendary ThinkPad.

msafi wrote:Of course, if I was cheated by Dell, I would harbor negative feelings toward them, although they would be different type of negative feelings. I would expect something like this from Dell with it being a budget brand. But, when I buy a ThinkPad, I expect the best in the industry. It's a brand that I used to be loyal to. That's why with ThinkPad, I feel let down and cheated.

I think Lenovo is milking the ThinkPad brand for all its worth. They are charging ThinkPad prices while neglecting the not-so-bottom-line-friendly philosophy that IBM ascribed to. Lenovo is killing the legendary ThinkPad.

As much as I understand your disappointment, I have to disagree with you on most of the things you wrote here.

First of all, Lenovo did not cheat you in any way. You received exactly what you paid for. If that does not suit your needs, it may make the product totally worthless for you, but it is not faulty. For some people it may be exactly what they need. Many would kill for a WUXGA screen (even though I myself would prefer WSXGA+ for that size).

The fact that the screen is somewhat dim is a known issue. I've heard complaints on it on every WUXGA screen in any previous Lenovo laptop. Lenovo ever rates those screens as 175nit, instead of the normal 200nit. No suprises there.

Do you have any other complaints about the laptop other than the screen (which, again, is not faulty - just not right for you)? Does it not perform on par with the specs? Is it poorly built?

Claims like "Lenovo is killing Thinkpads" are heard twice a week on average in this forum. I can certainly identify with some of them, but you have to give credit where it is due. Some choices made by Lenovo made the Thinkpads better, others made it worse. What exactly is better and worse is often disagreed upon even by the die-hard fans in this forum.

However your claim that they still charge premium prices for an average product is far, very far from the truth. Have you actually tried looking at the prices lately? For a $800 you can configure an entry-level T400. That's the flagship of Thinkpads. Just two years ago, when T60s were around, a similar configured entry level model would start at twice the price! And in the pre-Lenovo T4x era, even more.

The prices of Lenovo are unbelieveably low right now. In fact, it is so low, that anyone trying to sell a second-hand older Thinkpad is suffering from it, because they cannot compete with the low prices of new models.

Enough on Lenovo, though. A bit on DELL. I don't know why so many people have a misconception that DELL is a budget brand. If you only look at DELLs that they have on displays at Bestbuys you can certainly get that impression. But DELL, Like Lenovo has very serious and very high quality business lines. I am talking about the Latitude series, which have models that directly compete with any T/R/X out there, and the Precision workstation laptops, the competitors of the W series, and in the past the TXXp series.

If you actually look at the specs and features of these laptops, you will find that they are remarkably close to your typical Thinkpad. They are built just as well, and, surprise-surprise, sell for the same premium prices. And with Lenovo's recent price slashes, probably even more.

dr_st wrote:<snip> There is nothing different. The difference is in... you.

Non-native resolution makes text look "ugly and blurry" on any LCD and any operating system. Contrary to a popular misconception, Vista does not help here, because software in general has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the LCD having to perform an interpolation to match between the lower resolution and the higher number of physical pixels.
<snip>

With respect, this statement is not true. My display is very crisp and readable. There is a very subtle loss of crisp focus on some text (line by line) that does not affect use in any way. If I don't look for it, I don't see it. .... JDH

As already said in my reply to your question, I believe you don´t notice so much of a difference, because the native resolution of your display is not *so* high (*just* SXGA+). Try to go from WUXGA to WSXGA or WXGA and you will notice how much the image on the screen looks unclear and blurry, also compared to a screen with native WXGA resolution.

jdhurst wrote:With respect, this statement is not true. My display is very crisp and readable. There is a very subtle loss of crisp focus on some text (line by line) that does not affect use in any way. If I don't look for it, I don't see it. .... JDH

With equal respect, I don't believe it. There's no way that stretching 1280x1024 will be crisp, under any circumstances. Readable - sure, but not crisp.

Unless from some reason you don't stretch the display, but just center it...

But you did get me intrigued. If you can post photos of your display at 1400x1050 and 1280x1024, I would happily see them. Maybe you can prove me wrong.

Marin85 wrote:As already said in my reply to your question, I believe you don´t notice so much of a difference, because the native resolution of your display is not *so* high (*just* SXGA+). Try to go from WUXGA to WSXGA or WXGA and you will notice how much the image on the screen looks unclear and blurry, also compared to a screen with native WXGA resolution.

I don't think so, I think it is to the contrary. The closer the resolution is to native, the worse it will look.

dr_st wrote:I don't think so, I think it is to the contrary. The closer the resolution is to native, the worse it will look.

I was actually referring to my previous post with the statement that the higher the native resolution is, the greater is the image degradation produced by lowering the screen resolution. I didn´t compare the image quality under different screen resolutions below the native one. I guess I haven´t been very clear in my last post.

While we are still on this matter, why do you think that the image quality becomes worse with the screen resolution closer (still lower than) to the native one, and not the other way around? That would be interesting to hear. I´ll give it a try, although I think they will all seem equally unclear to me

@dr_st: I have no where to post it to. But I recall doing a presentation not too long ago and when I exited Presentation Manager, I was back at Native. I took me a few minutes to see that things were modestly smaller than I am used to and realized what had happened. Moving back to 1280x1024 increased the size at no discernible lack of crispness.

I posted to your all encompassing generality and I am now so old that for me there is no black and no white, only the in between.

However one thing that I might have lost and you didn't see in my earlier posts is that I am not stretching anything because I have a 4:3 screen. If I confused things for you, I am sorry. But I still have a nice crisp screen. .... JDH

Marin85 wrote:While we are still on this matter, why do you think that the image quality becomes worse with the screen resolution closer (still lower than) to the native one, and not the other way around? That would be interesting to hear. I´ll give it a try, although I think they will all seem equally unclear to me

Closer to native means that the difference is a smaller fraction of the whole. Smaller fractions are harder to interpolate.

Think about this - what's a more difficult problem? Dividing 14 pieces of cake between 10 people or between 13 people?

But actually I am not accurate - it's not exactly about closeness per se, it's about the greatest common divisor. The higher it is, the easier the interpolation. On average, when the resolution is close, it tends to be lower.

jdhurst wrote:However one thing that I might have lost and you didn't see in my earlier posts is that I am not stretching anything because I have a 4:3 screen. If I confused things for you, I am sorry. But I still have a nice crisp screen. .... JDH

By "stretching" I mean taking an image of X*Y pixels and stretching it to occupy physically more pixels. If you display your lower resolution on a full screen, you're stretching.

Of course stretching in a way that preserves the aspect ratio is better than stretching 4:3 to 8:5. You're actually not preserving the aspect ratio, if you run 1280x1024 (5:4) on 1400x1050 (4:3).

I am not going to argue with you about how crisp your screen is. You consider it crisp, and that is what matters. However, I am sure that if I looked at your screen, I would not consider it crisp. I saw plenty of LCD screens running non-native resolution, and text always looks blurry on them to me, regardless of aspect ratio, operating system or the weather. I don't believe that your screen is magical and does not suffer from this problem.

I hope I have not offended you in my black&white approach. I am not trying to tell you or anyone else that they are idiots for running non-native resolutions. All I am saying is that to some people, who are sensitive to this kind of thing, it may simply be unacceptable, on any LCD.

dr_st wrote:Closer to native means that the difference is a smaller fraction of the whole. Smaller fractions are harder to interpolate.

Think about this - what's a more difficult problem? Dividing 14 pieces of cake between 10 people or between 13 people?

But actually I am not accurate - it's not exactly about closeness per se, it's about the greatest common divisor. The higher it is, the easier the interpolation. On average, when the resolution is close, it tends to be lower.

I suspected something like this, but it turned out to be more interesting Thanks for the clarification!

Marin

I have always chosen to leave my ThinkPad displays running at native resolution. My personal experience has taught me that even though I have 20/20 vision, UXGA is simply too small for my comfort, as I work long hours in front of the computer. The sweet spot for me is SXGA+ which in the case of my new W500 becomes WSXGA+ @ 1680x1050. This is a resolution that I can work with all day, and find very comfortable. The amount of data displayed is excellent so scrolling is not an issue and overall it's a great compromise.

Cheers...

WSXGA+, which is the resolution of my desktop display, is just right. I wasn't particularly keen on buying a WUXGA, but the deal I found on eBay was for a W500 with this type of display. I never thought that I could be wrong going higher in the specs. I didn't have the knowledge about LCDs that I have now. It's a hard-learned lesson.

Yesterday, I bought a Sony VAIO FW series with 16" BRIGHT display and 1600 x 900 resolution. It's a beautiful display. And the laptop has a normal HDMI port, so I just plug it to the Dell monitor and it just works! I wish I had similar experience with the W500.

msafi wrote:WSXGA+, which is the resolution of my desktop display, is just right. I wasn't particularly keen on buying a WUXGA, but the deal I found on eBay was for a W500 with this type of display. I never thought that I could be wrong going higher in the specs. I didn't have the knowledge about LCDs that I have now. It's a hard-learned lesson.

Yesterday, I bought a Sony VAIO FW series with 16" BRIGHT display and 1600 x 900 resolution. It's a beautiful display. And the laptop has a normal HDMI port, so I just plug it to the Dell monitor and it just works! I wish I had similar experience with the W500.

XBRITE? I have a VAIO FS series with a gloss 1280x800 XBRITE (1 CCFL), and despite the decrease in desktop compared to my WSXGA+ T61, I FAR prefer the VAIO. I'm not in a position to buy another current model TP right now, but even if I was, I'd be a little hesitant with the current displays being offered.

Radioguy wrote: XBRITE? I have a VAIO FS series with a gloss 1280x800 XBRITE (1 CCFL), and despite the decrease in desktop compared to my WSXGA+ T61, I FAR prefer the VAIO. I'm not in a position to buy another current model TP right now, but even if I was, I'd be a little hesitant with the current displays being offered.

Yep, XBRITE! It's a nice display. I even prefer it to my 20" Dell LCD. I still use the desktop monitor because of the viewing angle, bigger size and higher resolution; not that much higher, though.

But you know, I've noticed that Windows Vista Aero adds to the problem of blurriness. Microsoft wanted to create a heavenly feeling by blurring everything up, but in the end they just made a user interface that's difficult to see. I'll be looking into switching away from Aero graphical effects while keeping the practical functions that it provides...if possible.