A31/A31p LCDs: 1400x1050 vs 1600x1200, and IPS or not?

[Milos]

Hi all,

I currently use an A31 with a 1400x1050 15" LCD (non-IPS), and am happy with the display. However, since I may have reason to change the motherboard, or just buy a replacement A31/A31p (not much more money), I was wondering about opinions of a few of you on the resolutions and IPS/non-IPS display differences of the 15" LCDs.

1) Opinions on: is the 1600x1200 resolution actually preferable to 1400x1050 on a 15" display -- i.e. are things not too small?

2) I gather that the IPS type of display (which comes in either 1400x1050 or 1600x1200 resolution, 15") is better than non-IPS in terms of picture quality, judging from a previous thread (http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=29908), but:
- is the weight difference large between IPS and non-IPS?
- is the power consumption difference large? (is there a spec?)

Thanks,

Milos

[FrankK-F]

Milos,
I have a couple of A31p models (R3U and R9U) both with UXGA (1600x1200) .. and my conclusion is that you can never have too many pixels.

Font size can be adjusted to suit .. a non-issue for everything I do .. 2D CAD work, 3D Modeling, Photoshop, Spreadsheet, email, browsing, DeLorme maps, word processing, frame grabbing, video editing, document scanning, etc.

Power consumption compared to lower res displays .. is probably higher by an unnoticable amount as the backlight is the bigger power consumer .. just my opinion.

Frank K-F

[Milos]

I have a couple of A31p models (R3U and R9U) both with UXGA (1600x1200) .. and my conclusion is that you can never have too many pixels.

Font size can be adjusted to suit ..

One thing I should say is that I generally use the Windows Classic desktop theme, as I can't stand the green and blue bubbly XP theme with huge red close buttons, etc. In the "Classic" theme the fonts are smaller, and optimized to read well in that default size. Changing font size makes them and other stuff look funny - e.g. with bigger font, the window buttons look a bit weird and the system tray icons are resized to some weird size so they look jagged, etc.

Have you tried the standard Win Classic theme on the 1600x1200 display, or is it better to increase the font?

(btw: put in your vote above, I see someone voted for the small screen but didn't explain..)

[doppelfish]

I also go with the more-is-better crowd. You can always, in increasing order of usefulness,

• run your 1600x1200 dpy at a lower resolution when needed,
  use larger fonts,
  tell your windowing system that your LCD is smaller (physically) than it actually is.

Assuming that pixels are square, with a diagonal of exactly 15'', the size of the display comes to 12'' by 9''. The width hosts 1600 pixels, giving a resolution of 4/3 * 100 dpi, i.e. approximately 133.3 dpi. Maybe try telling your graphical UI that it's actually 150dpi or 180dpi.

cheers,
-- fish

[Milos]

I also go with the more-is-better crowd. You can always, in increasing order of usefulness,

• run your 1600x1200 dpy at a lower resolution when needed,

Ugh, don't you always want to run an LCD at native resolution because otherwise you are resampling, i.e. rounding pixels and will have much poorer clarity in the picture than at native resolution (regardless of whether you go above or below native) -- see for example 640x480 VGA on a Thinkpad LCD -- the larger "pixels" are very fuzzy.

• use larger fonts,
  tell your windowing system that your LCD is smaller (physically) than it actually is.

Assuming that pixels are square, with a diagonal of exactly 15'', the size of the display comes to 12'' by 9''. The width hosts 1600 pixels, giving a resolution of 4/3 * 100 dpi, i.e. approximately 133.3 dpi. Maybe try telling your graphical UI that it's actually 150dpi or 180dpi.

That's a good idea, the larger DPI. All this scaling business works only for UIs that are designed scalable. But in Windows many UI things like icons are small bitmaps, not vector images, so they're not really scalable -- scaling them to some weird scale (like 120%) makes them look worse (the more zoom, the worse..). So I would think you'd want to keep the DPI for them, and simply allow the screen to get smaller and give you more room.

I don't see the need for more DPI in a picture than 1400x1050 gives, so to me the main benefit of 1600x1200 would be that it gives more space (desktop area) for applications if the pixel-dimensions of the UI are kept the same. In that context the worry is that it's too small to see.

Milos

[edited just to clean up typo]

[tfflivemb2]

While I don't have an A series that fits this description, I have tried using a 15" LCD on a brand other than Thinkpad that was 1600, and it made things to small for me. Even though I have 20/20 vision, I personally like 1024x768, but would like something with a slightly higher resolution.

[doppelfish]

• run your 1600x1200 dpy at a lower resolution when needed,

Ugh, don't you always want to run an LCD at native resolution because otherwise you are resampling, [...]

Yes, and that why it's at the beginning of the list :-)

[...] All this scaling business works only for UIs that are designed scalable.

Well, fonts are typically scalable. Personally, I prefer text to icons, and when I do have to use icons, I typically know which (of the ones I actually use) is which. But yeah, bitmaps don't scale.

I don't see the need for more DPI in a picture than 1400x1050 gives [...]

True again. I like the high resolution because it allows me to pack more detail onto the screen ... more windows are visible at the same time. But the 133dpi can be hard on your eyes after a long day.

cheers,
-- fish

[pianowizard]

I like to keep my eyes about 1.5 feet away from the screen, and at this distance things on my T43's 14.1" SXGA+ display are barely big enough to see comfortably. Things would be even smaller on a 15" UXGA screen, which is why I doubt I would ever buy a laptop with such a screen.

[FrankK-F]

What you all fail to address is what you do with your ThinkPads.

If my work were "text centric", XGA native res might be minimally adequate. However, I see my work as "image centric", thus UXGA and beyond is indicated, in my view. And I am not talking images in terms of the typical web images ... but CAD files where you never have enough pixels, photo/video editing, multiple apps and/or side-by-side open files, etc.

Along this continuum, to get more pixels, I added a (24 inch, digital connection via a Dock-II) WUXGA external screen directly above my TP's screen to get MORE pixels. Now I can, if I choose, have the option for an extended desktop 2400 deep x 1960 (top) plus 1600 (TP) .. great for my CAD work .. as I work between, among two or more files.

As for Milo's preference for the 'classic' view .. I too use that ... as I can't stomach the 'modern' Window's treatment. Yes my icons are small, as I have all my apps in the tray ... but have many data file shortcuts on my desktop. Having the 'clear type' under 'Display Properties' has been effective in avoiding the text jaggies mentioned earlier .. both on the desktop and inside the file-types I use.

I too work about 18 inches from my LCD monitor .. and my workdays may be as long as 14 hours with eyes on the screen. Eye fatigue has never been an issue for me (eyeglass wearer with special glasses set for reading to 6 foot distances) .. but then I have never, since 1986, had worked with CRTs only LCDs.

Hope this might help to sort your thinking.

Frank K-F

[ScottWitte]

Milos,

Everyone's eyes / preferences / needs are different so what works for one may not work for another. I suggest dropping by CompUSA or similar and check out an equivalent display laptop there to see what appeals to you.

Speaking for myself, I'm a photographer who uses my laptop on location, judging images and showing to clients as I produce them. I need the best display possible for that critical graphics work and the 15" UXGA is it. Color, brightness, angle of view are vastly better with the Flexview (ISP). If it sucks more power that is a tradeoff I can easily justify -- for my needs.

As for font size being too small, I can easily enough read normal program type at 3 feet so it is no problem at a usual 1.5 to 2 feet. Font size seems about what you have in a magazine. The display is very sharp so the fonts are sharp, clear and readable -- in my experience. If anything, I have more trouble with type on my 21" CRT at 1600x1200 than my UXGA 15" at 1600x1200.

[chris_clark]

I have a strong preference for the 1600 rather than the 1400, but some people who visit my office complain about my "micro-fonts". One thing that works better with the 1600 display than the 1400 is running it at 800x600, since that is simply a 2x2 pixel box at 1600.

The main reason 1600 works better for me is that I have a whole set of 1600x1200 monitors (1 at home, 2 at work) and I can thus easily go dual-head with the screen and the monitor having the same res (and that makes rdp (remote desktop) work very nicely, since it is always talking to the same size screen). If I had monitors that were 1400 rather than 1600, my preference would probably reverse.

Note that I often sit 3 ft from my lcd screen at work, because it is off to the side next to a 2 head desktop unit where I am actually working, and I just glance at the lcd to see what the laptop is doing. In that case, the fonts are a little too small--I can read isolated lines, but not paragraphs of text. However, if I move over to actually work on the laptop, I'm closer to 1.5 ft away and the fonts are readable unless I'm very tired. BTW, I wear bifocals and at 3 ft the distance view is better and at 1.5 ft the near view is better.

On icons v. text, I find that over time one recognizes the icons more by gestalt and size doesn't matter. I use small icons on my 1600 and never have trouble picking out the one I want. In fact, I have "really" small icons on the taskbar (using classic windows also) with text next to them. I can pick them out from 3 ft easily.

Note, I have a 1400 t23 that mostly sits in a desk drawer at work, because it doesn't have enought screen real estate.....