W700 WXGA+ verses WUXGA Screen

[ace34608]

Can someone please tell me the main differences between my choice of screens for the W700? My choices are: WXGA+ 200 NIT which has a resolution of 1440 X 900 or the other choice is the WUXGA 400 NIT with resolution of 1920 X 1200.

I do not understand what 200 vs 400 NIT means? Please explain.

I do understand the difference I think between the two different resolutions with the 1920 X 1200 being the far superior but there is also a difference of $175.00 with the superior resolution. I don't mind paying the difference if the picture is that much better but how is it going to be far better? Please help!!!
Many thanks!
Al



Many thanks!

[ajkula66]

It all depends on what you're used to...

WXGA+ on a 17" LCD would be too big for me personally. I'd imagine that WUXGA on that screen size is about right for most people.

NITs are the measure of your LCDs brightness. Most "conventional" ThinkPad LCDs were in the 150-200 nit range, so 400 nits should be VERY bright.

Hope this helps.

[ace34608]

ajkula66, you said, "WXGA+ on a 17" LCD would be too big for me personally. I'd imagine that WUXGA on that screen size is about right for most people." What do you mean when you say "WXGA+ on a 17" LCD would be too big for me. . . ." WHAT would be too big??? The size of the letters??? What? And you went on to say, "WUXGA on that screen size is about right for most people." What does that mean? What is it you are evaluating or discussing?

I'm looking for the differences between the two--WXGA+ vs. WUXGA (which costs $175.00 more) projected on the 17" screen? What do you get for that additional $175.00???

Thanks,\
Al

[ajkula66]

Icons (and everything that goes with it, fonts, etc.) would be pretty big on a 17" WXGA+, likely as big on a 15" XGA or a 15.4" WXGA. If you have average eyesight this would probably bother you, since you'd have very little screen real estate on a enormous (for laptop purposes) LCD.

You'd be paying for resolution on the WUXGA...and in my opinion it would be money well spent.

You may want to take a stroll to a local computer store and see what these resolutions look like in real life, be it on a HP, Dell or Acer...

Hope this helps.

[dr_st]

You may want to take a stroll to a local computer store and see what these resolutions look like in real life, be it on a HP, Dell or Acer...

Hehe. Good luck finding a WUXGA display model at the local computer store.

I totally agree with you, though. If I would compromise mobility so much as to get a 17" monster, it would absolutely have to be super-high-res.

[pianowizard]

I've never owned a 17.0" 1920x1200 laptop but fortunately, my institution's computer store has one -- it's a Dell XPS -- and I've played with it several times, and LOVE it. IMO, it is the ultimate display for desktop-replacement laptops. In terms of pixel density, it's almost identical to that of a 15.0" 1600x1200 LCD: 133.2 dots per inch for the 17.0", versus 133.3 DPI for the 15.0". So, ace34608, if you can't find a 17.0" 1920x1200 laptop, find out if your friends/coworkers/acquaintances have a 15.0" laptop with 1600x1200 resolution to see whether you can tolerate the smaller-than-average icon/text/image size.

I totally agree with you, though. If I would compromise mobility so much as to get a 17" monster, it would absolutely have to be super-high-res.

Yeah, I can't imagine traveling with one! But I've seen people lug these monsters to conferences. Does anyone know which 17.0" PC laptop is the lightest? The MacBook Pro is probably the lightest 17.0" laptop but obviously it's not a PC. The Dell Vostro 1720 is close, 6.8 lb, although Dell is notorious for underreporting laptop weights. Dell has stated the Vostro 1710 as being 6.5 lb on some pages but 7.07 lb on others, and I tend to believe the latter.