1920 x 1200 on a 15" is absurd!

Message

#31 Post by **archer6** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:47 pm

My T60p with a 15" conventional 4x3 format Flexview display at 1600 x 1200, is a pure joy to use. There is nothing else like it...

qviri · #32 Post by **qviri** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:52 pm

15.0" UXGA is 133 dpi, 15.4" WUXGA is 147 dpi. That's a pretty significant difference.

ajkula66 · #33 Post by **ajkula66** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:09 pm

qviri wrote:

15.0" UXGA is 133 dpi, 15.4" WUXGA is 147 dpi. That's a pretty significant difference.

The difference wouldn't be as significant if the LCDs were of the same type. Our (recently departed) T61p used to give headache to both me and my wife after less than two hours, meanwhile our T43p is on all the time and no one gets a headache...once again, IPS rules.

And, yes, we do have a R50p with QXGA as well...no headache there either...with even higher DPI count...

#34 Post by **archer6** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:24 pm

qviri wrote:15.0" UXGA is 133 dpi, 15.4" WUXGA is 147 dpi. That's a pretty significant difference.

True, that's why I'm really glad that I bought both my T60 SXGA+ and T60p UXGA when I did.

While I can see why some people enjoy the widescreen format, it's simply not for me. Due to the way I use my ThinkPads, a widescreen involves far too much vertical scrolling.

basketb · #35 Post by **basketb** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 12:28 am

archer6 wrote: ...

While I can see why some people enjoy the widescreen format, it's simply not for me. Due to the way I use my ThinkPads, a widescreen involves far too much vertical scrolling.

I've seen this statement alot that a widescreen involves too much vertical scrolling. But why would I scroll vertically more on a WUXGA screen than on a UXGA or SXGA+ screen?

#36 Post by **archer6** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:09 am

basketb wrote: I've seen this statement alot that a widescreen involves too much vertical scrolling. But why would I scroll vertically more on a WUXGA screen than on a UXGA or SXGA+ screen?

Simple math really. Just check the specs & you will see how much taller a 4x3 format display is, compared to a widescreen. There is quite a difference.

However if you are mainly viewing movies, or other entertainment based usage, no need for the 4x3 format.

I do a lot of 3D design work in which a widescreen is useless.

sent via BlackBerry

exTPfan · #37 Post by **exTPfan** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:41 am

In inches
4:3 14.1in is 11.3x8.5 area 95.4
16:10 14.1in is 12.0x7.5 area 89.4

4:3 15.0in is 12.0x9.0 area 108
16:10 15.4in is 13.1x8.2 area 106.6

Thus a standard 14.1 screen is an inch taller than a widescreen 14.1 and 0.3in taller than a 15.4in.
Also, the width of the 14.1 screen equals that of a keyboard, making for a perfectly proportioned laptop.

basketb · #38 Post by **basketb** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:19 am

archer6 wrote:
basketb wrote: I've seen this statement alot that a widescreen involves too much vertical scrolling. But why would I scroll vertically more on a WUXGA screen than on a UXGA or SXGA+ screen?
Simple math really. Just check the specs & you will see how much taller a 4x3 format display is, compared to a widescreen. There is quite a difference.

However if you are mainly viewing movies, or other entertainment based usage, no need for the 4x3 format.

I do a lot of 3D design work in which a widescreen is useless.

sent via BlackBerry

There is no doubt that a 15" 4:3 screen is taller than a 15.4" 16:10 screen. However a WUXGA screen has 1200 vertical pixels (the same as an UXGA screen). So, again I don't see why more scrolling is required when the vertical information displayed is the same.

(I'm not doubting that a 4:3 screen is better for your work/needs, I myself use an UXGA screen right now. I'm just wondering why more scrolling would be needed when the amount of pixels is the same.)

#39 Post by **archer6** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:47 am

basketb wrote:
archer6 wrote: Simple math really. Just check the specs & you will see how much taller a 4x3 format display is, compared to a widescreen. There is quite a difference.

However if you are mainly viewing movies, or other entertainment based usage, no need for the 4x3 format.

I do a lot of 3D design work in which a widescreen is useless.

sent via BlackBerry
There is no doubt that a 15" 4:3 screen is taller than a 15.4" 16:10 screen. However a WUXGA screen has 1200 vertical pixels (the same as an UXGA screen). So, again I don't see why more scrolling is required when the vertical information displayed is the same.

(I'm not doubting that a 4:3 screen is better for your work/needs, I myself use an UXGA screen right now. I'm just wondering why more scrolling would be needed when the amount of pixels is the same.)

Excellent question!

What comes to mind first is that it's an individual preference in terms of "how" the information, or image is displayed. Speaking for myself I like the size that is presented when using the high res 4x3 format. Then there is the matter of what one is using the computer for the majority of the time. Again, in my particular case I simply prefer the size & shape of 4x3, the appearance of the data / icons / images, and other elements that appear on my display while I work.

That said I have absolutely nothing against widescreen whatsoever. After all I have a PowerBook G4 that is a widescreen. Prior to which I've had many PowerBooks. And while it's not a machine I use for work, I do enjoy the OS X environment, and thus have adapted to the display as implemented on that model.

I would currently be enjoying a MacBook Pro as an alternate fun laptop for personal use, however after emerging from a two week ordeal (read massive waste of time) having purchased a new MacBook Pro, only to find that they are incapable of holding onto a WiFi signal, I had to give up on the idea. I use WiFi as mission critical way of connecting to the internet. I use it everyday, everywhere, meeting with clients at Starbucks, meeting with employees at any one of the five buildings my company occupies, and my home is one giant wifi network. After purchasing the new MBP three weeks ago, I took it to work where it logged on to the wireless network just fine. However after just an hour it disconnected and would not reconnect. I called the Apple store and they were very nice, asking me to return it for another new one. I did so, only to have the same problem with the second one. Long story short, they asked if I would try another and another, to see if there was a "good one" in their words. No luck! Now that I was aware of the issue, I checked on Google only to find this to be an ongoing issue with Aluminum MBP's for two years. Rather silly that Apple is so arrogant and unconcerned for the customer that they have allowed this to go on for so long.

Thus in the end, they waived the 10% restocking fee without me having to ask, and I returned the last machine they gave me for a full refund. Sad.... as I would truly enjoy one. However it simply continues to reflect the reality of what the company known as Apple is all about. After all this is not the first time, they've done these types of things. It's part of their arrogance and their culture. At the end of the day it's all about how much of the customers money Steve can stuff in his pockets.

I'm very happy it only represents a "secondary laptop to me" as they certainly cannot be counted on. That's why I rely on ThinkPads ... there is none better, period!

Cheers!

exTPfan · #40 Post by **exTPfan** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:17 pm

basketb wrote:
archer6 wrote:

So you don't think size matters? So 1600x1200 on, say, a 4inx3in screen = 1600x1200 on 16inx12in screen?

#41 Post by **archer6** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:38 pm

exTPfan wrote: So you don't think size matters? So 1600x1200 on, say, a 4inx3in screen = 1600x1200 on 16inx12in screen?

When I post 4 x 3, I'm referring to the display ratio / format, not size.

basketb · #42 Post by **basketb** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:00 pm

exTPfan wrote: ...

So you don't think size matters? So 1600x1200 on, say, a 4inx3in screen = 1600x1200 on 16inx12in screen?

This is a totally irrelevant question in the context that we are discussing here. My point is still that you do not need to vertically scroll more on a WUXGA display than on a UXGA display, no matter what the actual physical dimensions of the monitor are.

#43 Post by **archer6** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:18 pm

basketb wrote: This is a totally irrelevant question in the context that we are discussing here. My point is still that you do not need to vertically scroll more on a WUXGA display than on a UXGA display, no matter what the actual physical dimensions of the monitor are.

So what is it you are trying to accomplish?

basketb · #44 Post by **basketb** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:32 pm

archer6 wrote:
basketb wrote: This is a totally irrelevant question in the context that we are discussing here. My point is still that you do not need to vertically scroll more on a WUXGA display than on a UXGA display, no matter what the actual physical dimensions of the monitor are.
So what is it you are trying to accomplish?

I don't think I want to accomplish anything. All I wanted to know was when you wrote that

archer6 wrote:Due to the way I use my ThinkPads, a widescreen involves far too much vertical scrolling.

why you would scroll vertically more on a WUXGA screen than on a UXGA or SXGA+ screen? (see one of my posts further up this thread)

#45 Post by **archer6** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:31 pm

basketb wrote:why you would scroll vertically more on a WUXGA screen than on a UXGA or SXGA+ screen?

That question has already been answered.

ldr · #46 Post by **ldr** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:56 am

Why you guys always talk about 1600 by 1200? My T61p has 1920 by 1200?! In the beginning it was really difficult but when you get used to it its once again normal....

Quagmyre · #47 Post by **Quagmyre** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:53 am

ldr wrote:Why you guys always talk about 1600 by 1200? My T61p has 1920 by 1200?! In the beginning it was really difficult but when you get used to it its once again normal....

They're talking about 1600x1200 because some of the guys seem to run 14'' T61p's, T60's or something else with 4:3 aspect ratio screens.

It may just have gone a bit off topic since the original poster complained about 15.4'' T61p's with 1920x1200 16:10 display.

well ...

loches · #48 Post by **loches** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:12 am

ldr wrote:Why you guys always talk about 1600 by 1200? My T61p has 1920 by 1200?! In the beginning it was really difficult but when you get used to it its once again normal....

Yep. Only annoying thing is you can never go back. I went from XGA, to SXGA, to WUXGA, and the last time I looked at SXGA is seemed too big for me. I don't know where I can go from here!

pianowizard · #49 Post by **pianowizard** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:17 pm

loches wrote:Only annoying thing is you can never go back. I went from XGA, to SXGA, to WUXGA, and the last time I looked at SXGA is seemed too big for me. I don't know where I can go from here!

There's one resolution for laptop screens beyond WUXGA: 2048x1536, or QXGA. I have two 15.0" QXGA laptops -- see my signature -- and the super high res is especially useful for viewing huge photos. But for most purposes, 15.4" WUXGA (I had a Dell Inspiron 6000) is good enough, and texts appear much bigger than on 15.0" QXGA so it's easier on the eyes.

loches · #50 Post by **loches** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:40 am

pianowizard wrote:
loches wrote:Only annoying thing is you can never go back. I went from XGA, to SXGA, to WUXGA, and the last time I looked at SXGA is seemed too big for me. I don't know where I can go from here!
There's one resolution for laptop screens beyond WUXGA: 2048x1536, or QXGA. I have two 15.0" QXGA laptops -- see my signature -- and the super high res is especially useful for viewing huge photos. But for most purposes, 15.4" WUXGA (I had a Dell Inspiron 6000) is good enough, and texts appear much bigger than on 15.0" QXGA so it's easier on the eyes.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I'm sure you can go higher, technically, but my vision couldn't handle it. WUXGA is only just the right size (I had to increase the font DPI to 100%). I could go back to SXGA, I guess, but that's probably it.

ldr · #51 Post by **ldr** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:17 am

well you can always go back. Once again it just takes some time to get used to it....

#52 Post by **archer6** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:25 am

ldr wrote:well you can always go back. Once it again it just takes some time to get used to it....

Well said!

I enjoy the lively conversation that always seem to come up when discussing displays & their resolutions. It's such an individual thing, and in the process of people expressing their views it causes one to consider the various points in a way that one might not otherwise think of.

via:BlackBerry 8310

ccong · #53 Post by **ccong** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:21 am

being too old a person in the IT, I prefer 1024x768 in 15in , but reality is, we have to follow what the manufacture provide, if by end of this year , there is no 4:3 standard resolution any more, we have to adapt to the new Lenovo...

seaweedsl · #54 Post by **seaweedsl** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:41 am

shizat63 wrote: But 1920 x 1200 on a 15" LCD is absolutely ridiculous! I am obviously not happy with ThinkPads anymore.

-As many people say, give yourself time. When I got my 1600x1200,I was irritated and regretful for a couple of weeks, then adjusted and now love it. The sharpness and clarity overcomes the smallness and I have no sense of eyestrain after using one for 8 months. I'm not young myself, and use 1.5x reading glasses for books.

Check the tips on this thread for using hi-res: http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=12623

For web browsing, I switched over to Firefox because it has not only scaling, (also in IE7) but also a great little add-on called "no-squint" It allows you to set a default magnification for all sites and even remember special magnifications for individual sites.

I set no-squint at 120%, which seems good for most sites.
http://tinyurl.com/6kl8xt

Some sites still just don't scale right, or don't scale the important part, but no-squint at 120% generally makes me happier when surfing and makes the hi-res screen work on a medium-res web.

Steve

#55 Post by **archer6** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:31 pm

This is another option we have that quite frankly I tend to forget about. That option is to press the FN button and the spacebar which then magnifies the area to be read easier. It's fast, easy and functional. I find I use it only when on a site where it doesn't scale and the fonts are very small.

Cheers!

seaweedsl · #56 Post by **seaweedsl** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:51 pm

My problem with the Fn+ space bar magnifier is that it scrambles my desktop, just like changing resolution for the display.

I depend too much on my desktop organization for efficiency. It's like having a maid come in and sweep your physical desktop paper into a pile. Makes everything hard to find.

But for people who don't rely on their desktop organization, it seems a nice feature.

#57 Post by **archer6** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:56 pm

seaweedsl wrote:My problem with the Fn+ space bar magnifier is that it scrambles my desktop, just like changing resolution for the display.

I depend too much on my desktop organization for efficiency. It's like having a maid come in and sweep your physical desktop paper into a pile. Makes everything hard to find.

But for people who don't rely on their desktop organization, it seems a nice feature.

Good point, I understand how that would not work for you. I've not actually experienced that as I have a clean Icon free desktop. I use keyboard shortcuts for launching my apps so it is indeed different.

1920 x 1200 on a 15" is absurd!

Re: 1920 x 1200 on a 15" is absurd!

Who is online