Why Do You Want a 14" Screen With More Than 1024x768?

Message

bapatterson · #1 Post by **bapatterson** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:43 am

I have a T40 with the 14.1" screen and maximum resolution of 1024x768.

I like it. A lot.

I am waiting for the T43/50 to come out to replace it. I am not interested in a 15" screen because I travel a lot and the weight/size is a big issue to me.

A friend of mine just bought a T42 with a 14.1" 1400x1050 screen. First, it is significantly brighter/whiter than my screen. But I hate the resolution.

Text is too small, and even with all the obvious fixes in to increase the relative size, I find the appearance of the fonts tiring, and many web site designate screen fonts and I jump back and forth from the larger text size I selected to a smaller font dictated by the web site.

Yes, I know more will fit on the screen, but what good is it when it is so small (and my vision is 20-20)?

So what is the appeal of greater resolution? Perhaps I am missing something to resize everything? But if so, aren't I losing the real advantage of having the greater resolution?

dr.b · #2 Post by **dr.b** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:05 am

In most apps you have a fixed tool-size (eg flash 7). With a low resolution you have to zoom your workspace to 50% and it fits about 40% of your screen.
With a higher resolution (1600) you don´t have to zoom and the workspace fits about 60-70% of the screen. And you have really clear fonts and don´t need to blur them with pseudo crystal clear.
(btw use opera on high resolutions and be happy

)

gosha16 · #3 Post by **gosha16** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 6:53 am

i have a t42 with 1400x1050 and wouldnt want anything else. i love workspace and have never had any problems reading text.

atlacatl · #4 Post by **atlacatl** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:06 am

It all depends on what you need your computer for.

1024x768 is good enough for most things: surfing, typing, the odd programming assigment.

I personally would not use a 1024x678 screen. I hinders my ability to work productively. I develop code and I ussually have many windows opened at the same time - Side by side. Also, I use different IDEs and they require a lot of real state - Ok, they don't require it, however, it's better to get one screen shot of whatever I'm doing and 1024x768 just doesn't cut it...

Your eyes adjust to the resolution and also, you can't read everything on the screen - At least I don't - I read ONLY what I need to - For example, I know where the "File" drop menu is, so no need to read it - The higher resolution never bothers me - You should give it a try...

Kenn · #5 Post by **Kenn** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:42 am

I agree with Atla.

If you mainly do one thing at a time and tend to run apps full-screen, you probably don't need more than 1024x768.

But I'm usually jumping between 5-6 different programs, and need to keep track of another 2-3 at the same time, and I like to have everything visible so I can work spatially. You simply can't have enough windows open at 1024x768 to do that. Also, while standard apps such as web, Word and Powerpoint are fine for 1024 maximized, if you work with large spreadsheets in Excel, program and need to see many lines of code, or use tool/palette-rich apps such as Photoshop or Flash, you simply don't have as much useful working space at 1024 as you could productively take advantage of.

If you're 20/20, your eyes will quickly adjust to the higher resolution, and once you get used to it, going back to 1024x768 will feel a lot like moving back into a 300sqft studio after living in a luxury home. Sure, you may not NEED more than a combo livingroom/bedroom/bath/kitchen/closet, but you feel more comfortab, get more done and have more possibilities with the bigger place (not much surprise that people actually refer to higher resolutions as having more "screen real estate").

jsteele · #6 Post by **jsteele** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:17 am

It's certainly a matter of what you get used to. Before I got my T40p I used a 600x at 1024x768 and thought it was great. When I was shopping for my T40p I puzzled over the 1400x1050 and thought that I might have a problem with it (my eyesight is not 2-20

. But once I got it I found that it's not a problem at all. The additional screen real estate really helped my software development work.

My T40 was in for service last week and I was forced back to my 600x for a few days. The 1024x768 was almost painful in comparison

MichaelMeier · #7 Post by **MichaelMeier** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:39 pm

#8 Post by **K. Eng** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:27 pm

Side by side documents. Most software developers really appreciate the extra real estate.

I use my T40 for little more than routine office tasks, so 1024x768 is fine with me

bapatterson wrote:I have a T40 with the 14.1" screen and maximum resolution of 1024x768.
...
So what is the appeal of greater resolution? Perhaps I am missing something to resize everything? But if so, aren't I losing the real advantage of having the greater resolution?

teknerd122 · #9 Post by **teknerd122** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:37 pm

In addition to the extra real-estate that you get with the SXGA+ screen, the video card is MUCH better. I'd skip the XGA screen for the the fact that it has a Radeon 7500, alone! I'd rather have an iBook (which has more gpu muscle and longer battery life). There are those that will argue that the XGA t42 gets better battery life than the iBook when you have the extended battery, but then it loses in the size/weight department. I wish they had UXGA in the 14" t42...sigh...

Kenn · #10 Post by **Kenn** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:05 pm

A good analogy to this is like saying, "I have a Toyota Corolla and I like it a lot. Why do some people have full-sized cars?"

A corolla is a great workhorse and it gets the job done for a lot of people. But I'm sure you don't need to think hard to see why some people need larger cars (they're taller and need a larger cabin, want the added safety, speed, need to carry more people or cargo around, just want the added luxury, etc.)

It's also like the difference between doing your work on a nightstand that can fit one sheet of paper on it, or a huge desk that can fit all of your open books and files. If you work on one thing at a time, the nightstand will do. If you need to look up a lot of stuff or do several things at once, the nightstand just won't be enough.

esquire · #11 Post by **esquire** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:43 pm

for me it comes down to more space. I can view a whole page and have atleast half a dozen toolbars open when working in apps with 1400x1050, awsome. The text is super sharp too

Isaac000 · #12 Post by **Isaac000** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:57 pm

Same physical screen size, higher resolution means better pixel density.
Why is a 600DPI printer better than a 300DPI printer? Everything looks more smooth and less chunky.
Plus you get more working screen real-estate for less physical screen size. I would _never_ go back to anything lower pixel density.

As for that stuff about font size...I don't mean to offend, but that is utter crap.

You can set the font size of your system to something bigger. You can set the default font size and/or zoom on most applications to something acceptable. For web browsing, it is a quick key (or sometimes a click and scroll) to increase/decrease the font size for those stupid web sites which _insist_ on fixing the font to a particular size.

If your operating system or browser or application can't do this, maybe you should look for an alternative. How many poorly designed apps are "must-have"?

FYI, I do _not_ have 20/20, I wear corrective lenses. I previously used a 770X with 13.7" and 1280x1024 and now a T40p with 14.1" and 1400x1050.
I have no problem reading it. The only reason I see having a problem with this pixel density, is if you have a fuzzy monitor, but the Thinkpad LCD's are crystal clear.

Plinkerton · #13 Post by **Plinkerton** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 5:24 pm

I like mine a lot. It's nice to have all that extra space to read the forums on...

mdarnton · #14 Post by **mdarnton** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 6:30 pm

I wonder how much of this is age-related. My wife has a 12" Sony, and I can barely read the thing without my glasses.

Plinkerton · #15 Post by **Plinkerton** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:04 pm

Haha.. That's funny. I'm 22 and have great eyesight...

#16 Post by **jdhurst** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:14 pm

I have a T41 with 1024x768 resolution (the max it will do) and a NetVista A30 with a 17 inch NEC AccuSync monitor set at 1024x768 resolution (it will do more). I like the resolution *and* I work in Windowed mode, but my working Window is on top. I don't like side by side, but then I don't develop programs. This T41 is a keeper so I am at this resolution for a while. I think I may go to higher resolution when Avalon comes along (probably Longhorn). ... JDHurst

greg025 · #17 Post by **greg025** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:32 pm

I (still) have an A22P with 1600x1200 resolution in 13.7" format.

I still find it the best display I've used. period. I hate the idea of having to go back down even to 1400x1080.

BTW: I mainly do Software Development and configuration. Hence the extra real-estate is almost essential.

Cheers,

Greg

Kenn · #18 Post by **Kenn** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:03 pm

greg025 wrote:I (still) have an A22P with 1600x1200 resolution in 13.7" format.

I still find it the best display I've used. period. I hate the idea of having to go back down even to 1400x1080.

BTW: I mainly do Software Development and configuration. Hence the extra real-estate is almost essential.

Cheers,

Greg

Hi Greg,

Isn't the A22p a 15" notebook?

Personally, I thought the best resolution/size combo I've seen was the 1440x1050 12" on Toshiba's Portege tablet pc. The tactile pen surface made it a little fuzzy, but without it, it would have been just perfect.

1600x1200 is just about as good, though I'd love to see this resolution at 14" - I think it would start to be the ideal dot pitch for resolution-independent displays.

mdarnton · #19 Post by **mdarnton** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 7:15 am

Plinkerton wrote:Haha.. That's funny. I'm 22 and have great eyesight... :D

Exactly what I mean--I'm not, and I don't, anymore.

RCube · #20 Post by **RCube** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 3:44 pm

My eye sight isn't good. I can't stand using 17" lcd on a desktop because of the small pixel size.

Anyways, I just got my t41(1400x1050). First day was really hard on my eyes, I had to get really close to see anything. But after using it for a day or two my eyes adjusted. Infact, they have adjusted so well that I am can read what I am typing right now from more than 2ft away.

I am a programmer, so the extra space really helps me when I do vc++ work.

Why Do You Want a 14" Screen With More Than 1024x768?

Why Do You Want a 14" Screen With More Than 1024x768?

Re: Why Do You Want a 14" Screen With More Than 1024x76

Why not?

Who is online