Super high resolutions on laptops

[Temetka]

So I was just given a D830 from a client (yes, the same client who gives me on average a laptop a month).

If you guys have been paying attention to some of my threads recently you'll notice 2 things. The first is that I switched from Thinkpad's to Dell's and the second is I have a client who refreshes their laptops on a nice basis and as a result, they go to me. So I have had a slate of laptops come my way, which allows me to go through them, tinker, and try to come up with one that is going to fit my needs in for the next 2 years or so. The D830 is a pretty nice unit and the keyboard is VERY easy to type on. Probably the best keyboard on a laptop that I have ever used. I've been typing up random thoughts in a wordpad file (don't want to waste an office license yet) and it's just so easy to touch type on. To be fair, this D830 is quite a nice unit, it relatively fast, has a 256MB Nvidia NVS140 GPU, 4GB of RAM and a speedy 500GB hard drive, dual layer DVD burner, wifi, bluetooth, etc. It's also got the really nice keyboard I mentioned earlier, and a nice screen. It's nowhere near as powerful as my M4500 with it's i5 CPU, but working in IT, I don't need a very powerful computer to lookup server stuff. What I need is something powerful enough with a keyboard that is good to type on because I do a LOT of e-mailing.

Anyway this topic is not about the keyboard, or the machine itself. It's about the LCD. It has a native resolution of 1920x1200. This is on a 15" LCD. It actually hurts my eyes to use it on such a small screen. Now if this were a 22" LCD, then it would be great.

My question is this: why such a high resolution? Maybe for photoshop? For everyday work, the resolution is too high. The fonts are too small to read easily and the eye strain just isn't worth it. But once I dialed the resolution down to 1440x900 things became so much easier. Everything is still nice and crisp, but on a useable level. I recall a lot of members here over the years talking about using a 15" 4:3 QXGA panel and whatnot and how the resolution was astounding. I will agree with them that resolution is nice from a techical perspective. But from an IT guys point of view who looks at screens all day long, it's just a literal and figurative headache. My M4500 has a screen with a resolution of 1366x768 which is to low, whereas the native resolution of this screen at 1920x1200 is too high.

[ajkula66]

Do you wear glasses?

My eyes are bad and I'm OK with 1920x1200 on a 15.4" although I wouldn't be able to take more than that for any significant amount of time...

Another thing to consider is the screen quality: a lousy panel will tire out one's eyes a lot faster than a good one.

You were fine with 1400x1050 on a 12", that's the only reason why I'm mentioning the quality of the screen itself possibly being an issue...

[Saucey]

I feel ya, UXGA/WUXGA on a 15" is somewhat tough, the W700's 17" seems to have some 'sparkles' in it that makes it hard to see at times.
The HP monitor for the desktop is 21" but it also sports a way better contrast ratio I belive, thus is easier to see.
If the W700 had the same quality panel, oh god I would be happy!!

After upgrading my X61T to a SXGA+ model and using it weekly, I pulled a X61S I after its year vacation and I can't use it simply because of the resolution.
But that might be the cause of IPS.
I just like high resolution, after growing up with a 20" XGA and having a graphic design class during high school, I immediately spot any inaccuruacies/jaggies in printed material.
Heh I hear that some Art/Design colleges require you own a MacBook to take their classes, some even issue you one which is neat.
I learned photoshop w/ a iMac during high school, didn't use computers much, only complaint was their single button mouse they had.
Anyways I think Apple caught onto photographers and graphic designers using their MacBooks, I think thats why they did the "leap" in display resolutions.

Whats funny is when people have a very high resolution panel in their PC but still keep it at a low resolution or use the magnifier.
I had to do that with my father's unit.

Havent seen a WUXGA on a 15.4" only an SXGA+ from a W500.
SXGA+ is perfect in 14" & 15" 4:3 T6x units for everyday stuff.

Then again I am pretty happy with the WUXGA screen on my Galaxy S4, despite how small it is, I still use the smallest fonts on it.
But I still believe its due to contrast ratio again, looks great while inside, screen sucks outside in sunlight.

[Medessec]

I can personally deal with absolutely any resolution thrown at me, 1920x1200 on 15" doesn't phase me in the slightest, and I'm really hoping to get a QXGA for my T60p at some point. To my eye doctor, half-blind dad, and nearsighted sister's disbelief, my vision remains 20-20 and nearly spot on.

I would definitely agree that panel quality is a gigantic factor however. A washy, horrible contrast screen(particularly, the DSTNs of the old age) would give my eyes flashing colors and would be slightly disorienting and unpleasant even if it didn't bother me during the viewing.

That's one of the reasons I've come to adore Thinkpads- the mediocre screens in cheapo machines are just terrible for movie viewing, gaming, and basically your blood pressure and everything in general. From what I've seen- most people would draw the line at UXGA on 15", or WUXGA on 15.4". WUXGA at 17" is very comfortable and clear in my opinion.

[Temetka]

I think that D830 is headed for the marketplace soon. It's a very nice unit and I will miss the keyboard. But, I just couldn't hang with the screen, it was slightly yellow in tint and it just HURT my eyes to look at for any length of time. So I thought i'd pull my much loved E6500 back out and toy around with it. This unit has a 1280x800 LCD which is nice and bright and easy on my eyes. It's also a physically larger screen than the one in my M4500. Not to mention that it has a faster CPU which I can immediately feel the effects of. I used this machine as my primary for a few months and I really do enjoy using it.

I guess part of my issue is that in the last 6 months, I have had laptops literally handed to me. Which means options. Options means me playing with each one and getting to feel them out, find the strengths and weaknesses and so on. My biggest complaints with the M4500 are it's low resolution screen and weight. Otherwise it's extremely fast, even more so now that it has 8GB of RAM. Oh and the LCD is very, very bright. But just pulling out this unit kind of feels like coming home. It's got a nice screen, the keyboard is very easy to work on, and it's fast. I kind of wish it had a faster GPU than the Intel graphics. I can sway the motherboard for one with a Nvidia GPU in it for about $50. That would pretty much make this the perfect E6500. Too bad there is no way to add an mSSD drive to this unit though.

Ugh. I don't know what laptop to keep as my primary.

[Saucey]

Ah you're one lucky guy.
Reminds me of the story about how my uncle used to flip cars that cost too much for the owner to repair.
He'd only have them for a week til someone bought them.

You could always upscale the font on that unit, but doing so adds some wierd menu borders and funky fonts autoadjusting.

[pianowizard]

I had my first taste of 15.4" WUXGA through a Dell Inspiron 6000. Prior to that, the highest pixel density I had tried was an A31p's 15.0" UXGA (133 DPI), which was no problem at all. But the jump to 147 DPI proved to be surprisingly challenging. Of course, part of this problem was due to the Inspiron's screen being TN (probably wasn't even one of Dell's "UltraSharp" TN panels, which are actually rather good) while the A31p was IPS. I really wanted to get used to the 15.4" WUXGA though, because at that time I started to appreciate the advantage of having as much real estate as possible. It took me 3 full months to adapt. During this 3-month training period, I periodically lowered the res to 1440x900 or even 1280x800 just to let my eyes rest. But eventually I overcame this obstacle and I am so glad I did. Later, I went further up to 15.0" QXGA (170.7 DPI), on two R50p's and a T43p. Unfortunately, this time I could never fully adapt. After almost a year, they became tolerable, but never comfortable. So I sold all three. The IPS was supposed to help, but this benefit was offset by the dimness of all three screens.

Right now, the highest pixel density I'm using is my recently acquired Sony Pro 13 (13.3" FHD IPS touchscreen), 165.6 DPI. It's much more pleasant to view than 15" QXGA, partly because a difference of 5 DPI does matter, and partly because this panel is much brighter than those QXGA panels. BTW, I always stick with Windows' default DPI scaling because things look the most natural this way. So, I probably will never get any of those "retina" laptops (i.e. >200 DPI).

I can personally deal with absolutely any resolution thrown at me, 1920x1200 on 15" doesn't phase me in the slightest, and I'm really hoping to get a QXGA for my T60p at some point.

How can you be so sure if you have not even tried 170.7 DPI? Like I said, the difference between even 165.6 versus 170.7 is fairly pronounced. Being comfortable with 147 DPI doesn't guarantee you can handle 155 DPI, let alone 15" QXGA, especially if it's a dim panel made over a decade ago.

That's one of the reasons I've come to adore Thinkpads- the mediocre screens in cheapo machines are just terrible for movie viewing, gaming, and basically your blood pressure and everything in general.

You have come to adore Thinkpads *with IPS screens*. Thinkpads with TN screens actually tend to be worse than other brands' TN screens. And BTW, the Latitude D830 laptop that the OP mentioned was NOT a cheapo machine. I doubt Thinkpads ever had a better 15.4" WUXGA panel than the D830. IMO, the D820 and D830 remain Dell's highest quality Latitudes; they were almost as solid as the T60(p) Thinkpads but much sexier. Too bad the Nvidia units were as prone to GPU failure as the T61(p) Thinkpads.

[precip9]

Some people have high density retinas. I use a W500, with special glasses, and love it. I wouldn't want anything less.

[Unknown_K]

I hate the widescreen low resolution LCD. 1600x1200 takes a little getting used to on a 15" screen for me, I prefer a 14" 1400x1050 or 15" 1280x1024 (kinda rare but I have a few).

The only widescreen LCD I have in the house is a 24" DELL 1900x1200 and that is decent because of the size of the screen. Well that an my room TV which is 1376x768 (720P 32")

[Cigarguy]

My sweet spot resolution is SXGA+ or SWGA+. I have a few 1920 x 1080 screens that are quite nice. I can always adjust the font size for a beautiful high res high quality screen but WILL not put up with some crappy low res TN screen.

[ZaZ]

I can always adjust the font size for a beautiful high res high quality screen.

That's not always a perfect solution. Just based on my own experience, a PPI between 120 and 130 whatever the screen size seems to suit most users, though there certainly are some buyers who prefer more or less resolution.

[ajkula66]

Scattered around my house and all in actual use...

14" SXGA+

14" WXGA+

15" SXGA+ IPS

15" UXGA IPS

15.4" WSXGA+

15.4" WUXGA (the only one which is not on 24/7/365)

I can jump from one to any of the others and adjust in a split second...but UXGA remains my preference.

[kony]

I guess I'm the only one here who prefers low resolution screens on laptops... I can handle full HD only on a 22" monitor, whereas in 14-15" 1280x768/1366x768 seem perfect to me...

[WillAdams]

It's unfortunate that Microsoft hasn't done better at waling their U. I. resolution independent ad that Apple has seized on it as a way to sell hardware.

I'd like my x61 a bit more if it had the 1400 x 1050 display if I could get the stylus to work in Mac OS X.

[123434]

Use Windows 7/8 "Handicap"-feature and enlarge fonts/icons up to +200%.
+ Only way to see when using larger than 1240x1028< resolution...Otherwise looks like black flypoop.
- NOTICE: does not enlarge "independent" -.exe programs though. Only Windows-part of PC.
So lower resolution when using non-Windows programs.

Program makers should always make "settings"-option to enlarge text+icons in their programs.
For visibly challenged.(specially CAD+other design programs.)

[killer]

My T540p has 2880 x 1620 resolution on a 15" screen. It is fantastic for Adobe Lightroom which I use for developing DNG (RAW) photographs.

[MrMaguire]

High resolution laptop screens are something that I try to avoid. I have a Dell Latitude D820, and it is an excellent quality laptop. But the screen is unusable. 1920x1200 on a 15.4" screen, with an unacceptably dim back light. So everything is tiny, and you can only see it in a dark room. Switching to 1280x800 helps a lot, but you know how LCDs are with anything but their native resolution, and the back light can't be helped very easily.

Yes, high resolution screens are technically impressive. They look good on a spec sheet, or in somebody's forum signature, but no thanks.

The nVidia graphics in my D820 failed, and I think it's worth it to replace the motherboard with one that has Intel graphics. When I do that I'll probably swap the screen with the WXGA panel from my also-dead Dell Inspiron 1501.

[MisterB]

On high resolution displays, all you have to do is increase font and icon size to make things readable. I have mine set up so it is no more difficult on the eyes than a lower resolution display.There is also a dpi scaling option. On the UXGA T42p I'm using it is under the advanced display settings in Xp. I've got it set to 150%. Font size is set to "large" on the "Appearance" tab of the display settings. Once you do this, you have the advantage of high dpi images and still have icons and text at usable size.

[brchan]

The problem is that not all applications show up properly when dpi scaling is used. If there is one thing good about OSX, its that it can scale pretty much everything much better than Windows or Linux.

[JonathanGennick]

The problem is that not all applications show up properly when dpi scaling is used. If there is one thing good about OSX, its that it can scale pretty much everything much better than Windows or Linux.

Amen! If there is one thing Microsoft should be focusing all their energies upon, it is getting Windows to play nice with high-res displays. Apple stole a march on Microsoft several years ago, and Microsoft's only response has been to dick around with live tiles. It's awful.

The mere fact that in Windows there is more than one option to consider says it all. We can set our DPI scaling. We can change our screen's apparent resolution to something non-native. There are even options to increase icon and text size. Too many options! I'll need a PhD in scaling to get my screen right! Apple does it right with just five choices along a continuum: a default in the middle and two higher and two lower.

Scaling in 8.1 is tolerable for five years ago. It's a joke in 2015, an embarrassment.

Probably there are some poor architecture choices that Microsoft made 20 years ago that are working against them today. Somehow Apple was able to do good scaling with Mac OS X in just one swoop, whereas Microsoft has been at it for four or five years now and still is struggling.

[pianowizard]

Somehow Apple was able to do good scaling with Mac OS X in just one swoop, whereas Microsoft has been at it for four or five years now and still is struggling.

Apple is better but not perfect. If you look closely at a MacBook's or iMac's screen, you will see that some elements look a bit fuzzy. Apple is better than Windows in terms of being able to scale everything, but Windows' approach ensures that everything stays sharp (unless you choose a non-native resolution).

But I agree that on the whole, Apple does a better job. As long as Windows doesn't get significantly better, I will continue to avoid scaling, which means the highest pixel densities that I can comfortably handle are 165 DPI on laptops and 110 DPI on desktops.

[QWERTY Andreas]

Somehow Apple was able to do good scaling with Mac OS X in just one swoop, whereas Microsoft has been at it for four or five years now and still is struggling.

Apple is better but not perfect. If you look closely at a MacBook's or iMac's screen, you will see that some elements look a bit fuzzy. Apple is better than Windows in terms of being able to scale everything, but Windows' approach ensures that everything stays sharp (unless you choose a non-native resolution).

But I agree that on the whole, Apple does a better job. As long as Windows doesn't get significantly better, I will continue to avoid scaling, which means the highest pixel densities that I can comfortably handle are 165 DPI on laptops and 110 DPI on desktops.

That is because apple is scaling quite simple. The retina is having a standard scaling of 1440x900. This will simply be 1/4 of the original resolution in many programs.
Doing the same thing on a WUXGA display would make the scaling something that resembles a 960x600 resolution. That is quite low.

[Puppy]

but Windows' approach ensures that everything stays sharp (unless you choose a non-native resolution).

Windows are still backward compatible with almost 20 years old applications. That is. You can check High DPI Awarness of particular application by Process Explorer https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sys ... 96653.aspx

I would welcome high resolution displays because it would allow me to use text anti-aliasing I hate now. But the display must be really hi-res. Lenovo's 2880 x 1620 only on 15.6" (211 PPI) is pointless. Too high for 100% size, too low for zoom and anti-aliasing applied. 1920x1200 on my 8" tablet (283 PPI) is so-so regarding anti-aliasing, it is first device I can stand it on.

[jdrou]

Windows are still backward compatible with almost 20 years old applications.

Indeed my stepdad still runs WordPerfect Office from 1999 on his Windows 7 laptop.

I like high resolutions because I like to have as much info on the screen at one time as possible even if I need to move my head in to read small print. I have a 1920x1200 in my Precision M70 (Latitude D810 with better GPU) that is very nice for a TN panel.
Also very happy with the 14" FHD IPS on my T440p.

[pianowizard]

Indeed my stepdad still runs WordPerfect Office from 1999 on his Windows 7 laptop.

I am thankful for this as well because one of my most frequently used programs is Microcal Origin 6.0, from 1999. I am holding on to it because I don't want to be forced to shell out almost $1K to upgrade to the current version, which would be overkill for what I need.

I like high resolutions because I like to have as much info on the screen at one time as possible even if I need to move my head in to read small print. I have a 1920x1200 in my Precision M70 (Latitude D810 with better GPU) that is very nice for a TN panel.
Also very happy with the 14" FHD IPS on my T440p.

Nowadays, 1920x1200 and FHD are considered *mid-range* resolutions, because *high* now usually means "Retina", with pixel density exceeding ~200 DPI. 15.4"1920x1200 on your D810 is only 147.0 DPI. Even your T440p's 14.0" 1920x1080 is still only 157.4 DPI. Many people on this forum are perfectly fine with these pixel densities, though obviously some people (e.g. the OP) already find them too high.

[killer]

People can whinge all they like about anything. So many whinge about Thinkpads and they don't even use them ... they use Dell or Apple. If you use those machines then please explain what gives you the right to criticise screen resolutions that you can only hope you can afford one day?

I love highest resolution available when it comes to PC screens. When I bought mine I went for the best ... and I paid for it ... and I am a socialist so I pay my taxes too.

Please stop trolling unless you know what you are talking about.

[pianowizard]

People can whinge all they like about anything. So many whinge about Thinkpads and they don't even use them ... they use Dell or Apple. If you use those machines then please explain what gives you the right to criticise screen resolutions that you can only hope you can afford one day? Please stop trolling unless you know what you are talking about.

Are you sure you know what you are talking about? A high-res screen is a high-res screen, regardless of whether it's on a Thinkpad or Dell or Apple. Most current IPS panels are made by LG, not by the laptop manufacturers. Also, considering that Apple laptops are pricier than Thinkpads, I fail to understand the logic behind your statement about Apple users being unable to afford Thinkpads with high screen resolutions. For your T540p, upgrading from 1920x1080 TN to 2880x1620 IPS costs only $200 extra. That's chump change in 2015.

BTW, I bought a T540p last year and it's easily the worst Thinkpad I have ever bought, and I've owned over 40! The screen (which happened to be 1920x1080) wasn't the problem, but the gawdawful clickpad was. I gave that T540p away within a couple hours.

[jedisurfer1]

I find it much more productive. I can see a visio on one side, rdp on another side, and I don't need to scroll sideways on web pages. If you are nested RDP into multiple servers you can easily fat finger something. In a jam I didn't have my laptop so I used a low resolution spare I was nested into multiple servers and had to scroll up/down left/right to get to the start button. I got confused and fat fingered something, and restarted a terminal server. People from across the state froze up and disconnected their sessions. Whoops, now I just keep a bios protected laptop, encrypted with a HD password in the trunk of my car for emergencies.