1400 vs 1600 resolution feedback please

Message

#1 Post by **archer6** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:19 am

After doing the research and with help from pundit and the others here, I understand from a specification perspective what the difference is between 1600x1200 vs 1400x1050. However I have not seen the 1600x1200.

I'm currently working on a T60 with the 1400x1050 and while small, the text & icon size is fine for me. At this point what I would appreciate, is to hear from those of you who have had the experience in using 1600x1200 as opposed to 1400x1050. How much smaller is the icon & text size? Especially on the web etc.

Thanks to all of you who make this forum so useful and educational.

Archer6

pundit · #2 Post by **pundit** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:36 am

I currently use 1400x1050 (and have been over 3 years). I will be receiving my 1600x1200 T60p soon, and will let you know my thoughts.

In general, higher is better, and that's that. There really isn't much to discuss. But I can be more informative soon.

#3 Post by **archer6** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:53 am

Thanks pundit, your assistance is greatly appreciated.

ageyfman · #4 Post by **ageyfman** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:01 pm

the text is small, but the real estate is AWESOME. So, what are you doing on your PC? word processing and spreadsheets? or, are you doing design and development work.

I do software architecture and programming on my laptop, and I want as much desktop realestate as I can get - code gets long both sideways and down, so more pixels = bigger picture of what you're working on.

Likewise, UXGA is awesome for photo editing and retouching.

But, if you are doing pedestrian tasks, stick with the 1400X1050, everything over is overkill.

#5 Post by **archer6** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:11 pm

I use my computer for business apps, design, photoshop, financial, etc. It's my main computer as I travel in my business.

lithium726 · #6 Post by **lithium726** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:23 pm

well, i would say that if you want the 14" screen, stick with 1400x1050. if you are willing to go wtih the increased weight and size of the 15", get 1600x1200. the extra 200x150 pixels isnt that much more, but can be benefitial if you need real estate.

higher is better, but i prefer to stick with SXGA+ and my 14" screen.

#7 Post by **archer6** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:42 pm

15" is definitely the size for me. Sounds like 1600 will be fine.

thanks lithium726 !

ageyfman · #8 Post by **ageyfman** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:03 pm

Archer, if you can stomach the increase in price, def. go for the 1600...

astro · #9 Post by **astro** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:37 pm

In terms of the relative pixel sizes:

14.1" 1024x768 = 91 dots per inch
14.1" 1400x1050 = 124 dots per inch
15.0" 1600x1200 = 133 dots per inch

So your text is not going to get much smaller (<10%), but you are going to gain in real estate... Useful for photo editing and general diagramming.

pundit · #10 Post by **pundit** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:42 pm

archer6: I find the 1600 resolution screen outstanding. Here is a sample of the font rendering in windows at 133 DPI, since that was what you were interested in:

http://emphaticallystatic.org/blogimage ... g.blog.png

FuguTabetai · #11 Post by **FuguTabetai** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:29 am

I have a ThinkPad A31p with the 1600x1200 UXGA screen, which replaced an A31 with the 1400x1050 screen. I vastly prefer the 1400x1050 screen because the fonts are too small for some programs.

Increasing the DPI setting in Windows on the video adapter makes most things bearable (a bit too large actually) and setting minimum font sizes in Mozilla helps, but for any programs that insist on showing 9pt fonts, I can't stand it. I'm in front of the computer all day, and squinting like that really can wear on you after 10 hours. Linux is even less consistent, and trying to set DPI for the web browser and system just right is difficult.

Worse, many web sites specify pixel widths for layout. That is horrible. I want to have a high resolution display screen so I can have clearer content, but since pixel based formats still predominate, the 1600x1200 display just makes too many things too small for me.

I preferred the 1400x1050 screen, which didn't give me as many problems. I've just ordered a T60p with a 1400x1050 screen for that reason (but it is 14" instead of 15", so I might regret that...)

It if helps give context, I also use a 15" PowerBook with 1280x854 resolution that is nice, and was using a 15" PowerBook with 1440x960 which I prefer a bit more to the 1280x854 powerbook. I'm also a 31 year old who has been wearing glasses since I was 7 years old, so young people with perfect eyesight might not feel the same way about the screens...

I do think the screen is beautiful, but until I get OS-level support for scaling up graphics, and pixel-based web layouts die out, that screen is just too high resolution for me.

#12 Post by **BillMorrow** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:02 am

the 15 inch 1200x1600 is flexview..
the 14 inch 1050x1400 is not flexview..
thus the 1200x1600 is super for photo work..

both real estate and color..

Sottozero · #13 Post by **Sottozero** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:16 am

I got the 15" FlexView and it is quite literally the most amazing screen I have ever seen. Color reproduction is amazing, and the viewing angle is unsurpassed. It's depth isn't as great as those glossy <insert brand name here> LCD screens, but it's far cleaner (in terms of not having any glare) and nicer, IMHO.

To me, this is the biggest "feature" of my new T60p.

Zed · #14 Post by **Zed** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:28 pm

I'm also a 31 year old who has been wearing glasses since I was 7 years old, so young people...

FuguTabetai, I'd say that you still qualify among young people - what kind of resolution should have those who are approaching 60?

(Luckily, not my case yet

.)

jtreble · #15 Post by **jtreble** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:38 pm

I prefer a maximum of 1400x1050 on my TP. For higher resolutions (and DVI) I use dual external monitors hung off a TP/DOCK.

dr_st · #16 Post by **dr_st** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:48 pm

FuguTabetai wrote:I've just ordered a T60p with a 1400x1050 screen for that reason (but it is 14" instead of 15", so I might regret that...)

You probably will.

kskim91 · #17 Post by **kskim91** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:13 am

I'd suggest going to a local store and checking out 15in 1600 laptops and playing around with them for sometime.

I've used t42 with sxga and a t43p with uxga and I find that I don't mind either screens. However, I do miss the larger "canvas" size of the 1600. One way I compared it was to remote desktop full screen from sxga machine to the uxga machine and use it for a while then go back and login to the uxga machine. You can see just how much of the screen I was not using by the layout of my various windows. It's roughly a strip 1.5in around the bottom of the screen and up the left hand side of the screen. With the sxga I would get scroll bars on some of my fav websites, but no scroll bars with the uxga machine.

However, some of my older colleagues don't like to read off both displays and prefer plain xga.

With a 6cell battery in the t43p I don't really notice a large difference between the two models, it's still heavy

in the bag. Size wise, it is larger but if you are just plonking it down on desks and not using it on the go, it not that of a difference.

Just a word of warning, once you have used a higher resolution display and it doesn't strain your eyes, its really hard to downgrade to a lower resolution. I now have real problems when I try and work on a plain xga computer.

One sentence advice : If you can afford it go with the uxga.

jeremivw · #18 Post by **jeremivw** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:00 am

Sottozero wrote:I got the 15" FlexView and it is quite literally the most amazing screen I have ever seen. Color reproduction is amazing, and the viewing angle is unsurpassed. It's depth isn't as great as those glossy <insert brand name here> LCD screens, but it's far cleaner (in terms of not having any glare) and nicer, IMHO.

To me, this is the biggest "feature" of my new T60p.

Ditto.

beeblebrox · #19 Post by **beeblebrox** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:55 am

In the past I have stated many times, that the higher the pixel resolution the better. I own a 14.1" SXGA and recently purchased ad T42p with UXGA. 133dpi for UXGA is far better than 123 or 91dpi. The characters and everything is just crisp and easier to read. However, having said that, I am typing this on my T23 with XGA and it is my preferred machine at this time.

The problem is Windows which just does not scale. I have tried everything, from using large fonts to dpi scaling, liquid view, and Truetype hacking and have given up. There is always a new application or a stupid web site that insists on its own type fonts and layouts.
I have always had to adjust the screens and the layouts were a mess most of the times. What a constant waste of time.
For some time I went back to the original 96dpi settings so that screens were correct, but in the end I ended up with headaches and eye problems after working 10h straight on the notebook with UXGA. I sold the T42p.

I am currently even considering WXGA on the Z60m which probably is the best resolution on the market right now.

As far as I know, VISTA will be completely vector based. Icons, windows layouts, characters etc. will all be fully scaleable.
Anything below SXGA+ would be a waste. The higher the dpi the better.
But I guess the T62 will be the first ThinkPad featuring VISTA, sometime in late spring 2007.

kskim91 · #20 Post by **kskim91** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:36 am

Again, I think it is important to find out if you eyes can take the strain of using a uxga display. It's a pretty hefty investment so I would strongly suggest getting some time with a uxga display. Some people really have problems with the small size of the fonts and as people have previously mentioned it's something that can't be fixed elagantly.

I've seen people who bought high resolution displays and then hack at the display setting that made me wonder why they are trying to make a wuxga in to a xga.

jagged · #21 Post by **jagged** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:35 am

Anyone know of a T60 review with a side by side picture comparison on its 14" screen?

I'm planning to get a T60 soon but the model I like has the 14" TFT screen w/ ATI X1300 card and only 1024x768 max resolution.

I can go for a slightly lower model (CDRW instead of DVDRW, 60GB instead of 80GB) but has the same video card and 1400x1050 resolution.

This is a HK model btw. I understand that in the US, T60's with ATI X1300 card come with 1400x1050 SXGA+ screens only.

Thanks!!

crashnburn · #22 Post by **crashnburn** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:29 am

where can I actually see in person

a T series and compare size/ weight and screens between a

14" SXGA+

15" UXGA

in PERSON.

Where? Any stores? etc

GoofyG28 · #23 Post by **GoofyG28** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:51 pm

My concern is not between the 14" and 15", but between the 15" 1600x1200 (UXGA) and 1400x1050 (SXGA+). I opted for the 1400x1050 because I don't need the higher-end video card. Plus, I can't afford it anyway.

My now dead Inspiron 8000 (figures!) had 1600x1200, and it was sweeeeet. Will I be losing much here with the lower res 15" FlexView?

dr_st · #24 Post by **dr_st** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:04 pm

GoofyG28 wrote:Will I be losing much here with the lower res 15" FlexView?

Nah...

Army Chief · #25 Post by **Army Chief** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:16 pm

I actually prefer the SXGA+ FlexView, and opted for the T60 (76U) instead of the T60p because of this. Would make the same decision again without a moment's hesitation.

Chief

Hotbrick · #26 Post by **Hotbrick** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:01 am

Hi,

Before my UXGA flexview I used a T41 SXGA.
Both are great but still the difference is huge.
Especially when I'm outside. Sun-reflection is (almost) no problem anymore and viewing angle is amazing on the UXGA.

So......if it's possible......UXGA!

1400 vs 1600 resolution feedback please

1400 vs 1600 resolution feedback please

Who is online