question about screen "native" resolution.

[Derrik Draven]

I'm within days of placing my order for my new laptop and, I just want to make sure I'm not going to screw myself out of 2 grand.

 

The laptop, made by Sager, that I'm probably going to get has a WUXGA screen, which I think is around 1900 X 1200, native resolution.

 

Well, at that resolution, I can't read DICK on the screen. It's just too damn small!!! The forums that I've been surfing mention that if you're gaming, and you're NOT in "native" res, the screen can look blurry and distorted. Some guys even mentioned that that's exactly why they are happy with their SXGA screens.

 

How the hell do people see/read/use the microscopic text at a blisteringly high res like UXGA?!!? :eh Am I to believe that if I go ahead and buy this laptop, I'm going to be stuck looking at everything through a magnifying glass?

 

Can't I just tone down the resolution? What am I missing here??????

 

I'll be placing my order this Monday so, I have this weekend for any last minute decisions.

 

Thanks for any info you guys can give.

[rustyjaw]

WUXGA is 1920x1200 or 16:10. That's a lot of pixels in a small area (is it a 17"?). I run a 21" monitor at 1600x1200 and that's pretty small as it is.

 

LCD displays are fixed resolution in the sense that there is one screen element for every pixel in the video signal, so literally on that LCD every row of pixels has 1920 lighted elements, and there are 1200 rows stacked up. If you select a lower resolution, the pixels that the computer is sending to the display do not align one-to-one with the picture elements on the display, which degrades the image quality quite a bit (it gets blurry).

[Baiter]

I have the same problem on a 15" laptop. :mad: Most apps have a zoom feature, which helps in trying not to go blind. Opera has a zoom for web browsing, IE in this res is torturous. Sorry, but my pc is used strictly for business apps, I can't comment on gaming.

[Derrik Draven]

This has a 15.4" screen.

 

So, you're saying that, yes...in fact, I'll be looking at ridiculously small text on everything.

 

How do people use these things?!!!? :eh

 

Currently, I have a Dell Inspiron 8200. I have no idea what the native res is. I THINK it's an SXGA screen. I configure the desktop for 1024 X 768 and, it looks fine. That's about as small as I want to go.

 

If I get this new one, with a WUXGA screen, I most certainly will want to turn the desktop down to what I normally use.

 

....it will look that bad? I wish I could demo one to find out...

[foogledricks]

Right, you must use your native resolution. The blurriness is unacceptable. For gaming, who knows if your laptop could even render games at that native resolution with a decent framerate. That, no one can help you with. As for Windows:

 

The problem with windows is that it is bitmap-based, unlike MacOS X. So the interface cannot scale properly. However, there are features that help with high resolutions. First, you can change the DPI setting for you display driver, which will increase a lot of the elements you're worried about. There are also icon size settings for the start menu that you can change as well. For each application, like Word, you can zoom to whatever view works best for you.

 

Also don't discount the relative clarity you get from having a quality high-resolution LCD display. It compensates for the size, in that you can handle smaller text because it is clearer.

[rustyjaw]

The problem with windows is that it is bitmap-based, unlike MacOS X. So the interface cannot scale properly.

 

Actually, OS X is effectively bitmap as well, although Tiger supports a fully vector UI...it's there for developers to code to and not yet used by any shipping apps (that I know of).

 

The future is resolution independent GUIs (actually, it's the past as well since IRIX has used this since the 90s), for this very reason. Bitmap interfaces are a stumbling-block for higher resolution displays.

 

the only reason I can think of for laptop makers to ship screens with such high resolution is to pump up the specs, because it sure isn't ergonomic.

[foogledricks]

Actually, OS X is effectively bitmap as well

I can't speak for all the elements. But the icons are vector, as obvious for those using the mouseover-zoom feature. The windows, I believe, are also vector-based, based on the various scaling effects I have seen. A lot of them are turned off by default, but it is clearly a vector-based scale. Perhaps I assumed wrongly that everything is vector-based, since I keep hearing over and over how Longhorn's vector/3D-based interface is irrelevent since OS X has sported that for y-e-a-r-s. This is touted over and over and over by Mac advocates, so perhaps I misinterpretted that.

 

Regardless, we obviously made our point about bitmap interfaces. They are the wave of the PAST. Good riddens.

[Derrik Draven]

Okay...well, damn. Now I really don't know what to do. :confused:

 

I'll just throw myself into the court of opinion and flat out ask, "what should I do"?

 

I want to use this thing mostly for surfing, movie watching, music and games. The gaming aspect is not, believe it or not, the primary use. I figure, the 360 is going to be out in a few months, cost an absolute fraction of what a top of the line laptop costs, and have the performance to wipe the floor with just about any pc made, right now.

 

What screen type should I shoot for? Apparently, WUXGA is going to be terrible for what I want to use it for. I'm guessing that an SXGA would probably be about right? Any opinions?

[rustyjaw]

I can't speak for all the elements. But the icons are vector, as obvious for those using the mouseover-zoom feature. The windows, I believe, are also vector-based, based on the various scaling effects I have seen.

 

No, the icons are bitmaps (128x128 pixels), believe me, I've designed a few. Windows are textured 3D polygons, which is how OS X can do the twisting, zooming, and transparency for 'free' because the video card does it. But they are in fact textured with bitmaps.

 

EDIT: Ironically Keith, in response to your post below, I forgot that in Tiger max icon size is 256x256.

[foogledricks]

No, the icons are bitmaps (128x128 pixels)

Actually, they are 256x256 pixels if optimally done. Just kidding. I'll concede. Back to point though:

 

I have a 19-inch 1280x1024 LCD. I'd say perhaps the size of everything is just right. But since you're talking about 15-inch screen, I'd say you should shoot for something no more than that. Anything more and you won't be able to run games at the native resolution, and things will be too small. I don't imagine it should be too difficult finding a native screen resolution at or below this.

[iainl]

My 15" LCD is just 1024x768, and frankly I wouldn't want it to be much more.

[Spike]

I have a Dell Inspiron 8200 with a 15" screen, and the resolution is 1400x1050. I love having all the space to work with, but there have been times where it kills my eyes (mind you this is after prolonged usage).

 

I have never been able to change my resolution. When I do, it just changes the size of the image on my screen, leaving a black border and making the type smaller and thus even tougher to read. So then all the games I want to play just run on a 6 or 7" diagonal screen.

 

But I didn't buy it for gaming so it's never bothered me too too much. I'd try to demo a laptop with similar screen resolution in the store first if you can.