Help-Before I Order: Best Resolution -T60 15" TFT ?

[archer6]

I've decided on a T60 with a 15" TFT, now the question is which resolution. Choices are: 1400x1050 or 1600x1200. I will be using this as my main computer and I do a wide variety of work. Office apps, design, financial, photoshop, etc.

In addition, I spend a lot of time in front of the computer.

Your experience & comments are appreciated.

[lithium726]

1600x1200 is what i would use if i were getting a 15' screen.

1400x1050 if you like things a little bigger, but i tihnk this reso is best suited on 14" panels.
1024x768 is just worthless. unless youre working with a 10" screen or so, it should never be used.

[archer6]

lithium726, thanks for your feedback.

Is there much of a difference in Text and Icon size between 1400 vs 1600. I spend a lot of time in front of the computer

[RonS]

My preference is definitely 1600x1200 for the 15" screen

[jeremivw]

Is there much of a difference in Text and Icon size between 1400 vs 1600...

Maybe a slight difference but I agree with Lithium that 1400 is a perfect res for 14" (that's what I'm using now). I'm really looking forward to the 1600 15". For more info on the differences, look up the panel specs and refer to the pixel pitch. 15" UXGA is something like .19mm and 15" SXGA approx .22mm...I even found a 15" QXGA by IDTech with a .1485mm pixel pitch (now that might be too small)!

Remember, though it is preferable to run native res on any LCD, you at least have the option of stepping down, using larger fonts, etc. with a higher res screen. If you choose 1400 in a 15" you won't have the option of increasing the res...

[GXCross]

It's really personal preference. Personally, I like the 1600 screen because I don't mind the text really small, and I do coding. But most older people who see it find it too small, and feel they'd go blind. Increasing the font sizes doesnt work perfectly because most icons/graphics don't scale accordingly. I'd even wager that the average person would probably prefer 1400x1050 on a 15".. but then again, most thinkpad'ers are probably not the average person, hehe.

[dr_st]

Here's another opinion:

1400x1050 is not the perfect res for 14". It's way too small. It was even small on my 15". For 14" 1024x768 is preferred for most cases.

I adjusted font sizes on my 15" 1400x1050 (T42) and now can work with it quite comfortably. One can do the same thing to a 1600x1200 as well.

1600 vs 1400 is a rather small difference. Not worth considering. The question on getting a T60 or a T60p should not be based on that for most people.

[leegaard]

It's really personal preference. Personally, I like the 1600 screen because I don't mind the text really small, and I do coding. But most older people who see it find it too small, and feel they'd go blind. Increasing the font sizes doesnt work perfectly because most icons/graphics don't scale accordingly. I'd even wager that the average person would probably prefer 1400x1050 on a 15".. but then again, most thinkpad'ers are probably not the average person, hehe.

I work as an IT professional and quite a lot of customers find 1400 x 1050 and higher resolution much too small.

Trying to solve it with bigger fonts doesnt make that customer satisfied at all. So the truth isnt that obvious.

So in that case personal preference and prior long term testing with at similar resolution is really a "MUST". Otherwise more expensive ends up being less satisfying, which is a bad outcome of rigorous decisionmaking.

[collector_edi]

I have been on 1600x1200 for nearly five years and love it. It is purported to use more power however the upside far outweighs this. I use my notebook for work and home and the extra screen real estate is a must. I would not have replaced my desktop without this feature.

[lithium726]

Here's another opinion:

1400x1050 is not the perfect res for 14". It's way too small. It was even small on my 15". For 14" 1024x768 is preferred for most cases.

wow, and i thought 1024x768 was too big on my X31's 12" screen...

IF I ever bought a 15" TP, which I probably never will, it would be 16x12. I like the size of the 14" models too much, and will be sticking with 1400x1050... 1024x768 simply does not have enough real estate for me to be productive.

[hoya]

archer6:

this page will provide some worthwhile information when comparing the SXGA+ and UXGA resolutions:
http://www.qg.fi/screeninformation.html

[dr_st]

1024x768 simply does not have enough real estate for me to be productive.

What do you do on your laptop?

[lithium726]

1024x768 simply does not have enough real estate for me to be productive.

What do you do on your laptop?

xilinx, modelsim, matlab, image editing(fireworks most of the time), research papers, other homework, financial stuff (quickbooks), AIM, managing my ebay selling, other websurfing... and i sometimes have a video running in the background to keep me entertained (something along the lines of southpark or drawn together..)

i do a lot of this at the same time. i go from one task to another, getting things done a little bit at a time. especially when doing research papers, its especially nice to have a source and the paper (word) open at the same time, something i cannot realistically do on an XGA screen.

I have two 17" LCDs on my desktop, which is used for the same things as this one is. i need screen realestate, else i have something distracting (like the video) taking up too much of the screen and i forget about the crap i have to do... so it never gets done.

the machine does get a little sluggish under these conditions too, though its a hell of a LOT better than the T23 i was using before this. i guess im just a power user *shrug*

[Steve007]

1024x768 is just worthless. unless youre working with a 10" screen or so, it should never be used.

That's a load of crap. My T40p is 1400x1050 and my T42 is the standard 1024x768. I prefer the higher resolution of my T40p but if I'm writing or casually browsing the net I prefer the resolution of my T42 as the vast majority of web pages are formatted and designed for this resolution.

To say it's worthless is a ridiculous statement to make.

[lithium726]

its my opinion, and i have no problem with you liking XGA, but you liking it does not make my opinion invalid or crap. I think its worthless because I cannot be productive with it.

as far as browsing with XGA, i find it to be a pain in the [censored]... i spend a lot of time on forums when im not working, and lots of people post pictures larger than XGA. it expands the forum and i have to scroll to see all the text. web browsing is much more comfortable on SXGA+ for me. working on my T23/XGA is very uncomfortable, i have to take down the size of icons and text to make it look a bit smaller, everything is too big as is. I sold my X31 after a week and went back to T series notebooks becuase i didnt like the screen.

[movado]

I have a T43p 15" with resolution of 1600x1200 UXGA. I like that option if I need it. I usually set the resolution at 1024 x 768 and up against my other T42 15" laptop no comparison. T43p TFT resolution beats it hands down in contrast brightness etc.

Anyway - I have no no problem scaling it down to a lower 1024 x 768 resolution with fonts set at normal 90dpi.

[jdhurst]

its my opinion, and i have no problem with you liking XGA, but you liking it does not make my opinion invalid or crap. I think its worthless because I cannot be productive with it. <snip>

What you might do is make your opinions a little less strenuously. We all get to do what we want without someone telling us what we do is crap or worthless. Use what you like, and please allow the rest of us to enjoy what we like.
... JD Hurst

[hdahl]

I've decided on a T60 with a 15" TFT, now the question is which resolution. Choices are: 1400x1050 or 1600x1200. I will be using this as my main computer and I do a wide variety of work. Office apps, design, financial, photoshop, etc.

In addition, I spend a lot of time in front of the computer.

Your experience & comments are appreciated.

Personally I use *p models for situations where I actually use the computer physically and non-*p models for server servicing purposes.

Generally it should be in such a way that people wanted the highest resolution possible of course, but unfortunately there's an incomprehensive coupling between resolution and physical size. This coupling will however be over in a few months as Windows Vista introduces a virtualized approach with 96 pixels per inch no matter how large a resolution you have, so from this moment a higher resolution will just mean higher details. I must say that the subpixel rendering and y-axis anti aliasing gives absolutely stunning views!


Best regards,

Henrik Dahl

[hoya]

This coupling will however be over in a few months as Windows Vista introduces a virtualized approach with 96 pixels per inch no matter how large a resolution you have, so from this moment a higher resolution will just mean higher details. I must say that the subpixel rendering and y-axis anti aliasing gives absolutely stunning views!

are you currently using the latest Vista Build? does it automatically re-size all the fonts if you install Vista on a PC with a high resolution monitor?