Non-NonRev

I'm trying to make a decision between the two above screen resoultions.

The laptop in question will be used for mainstrean Microsoft Ofice apps, and the only regular graphical use will be playing DVD movies.

The price diffference is not that great (and therefore not a make-or-break factor) - availability at the time of purchase is the main consideration. The XGA configuration is available from many vendors (including those who do not charge sales tax). The SXGA is pretty much only available from the manufacturer's direct sales outlet, which does charge sales tax (about $100 in my case). Also, the manufacturer's site has a lag time of about 2 to 3 weeks when the SXGA screen is ordered.

Question: Generally speaking, is there is a huge difference in the screen/image quality all other things being equal? Or should I bite the bullet (and wallet) and go for the SXGA?

Two factors:

a) I do not use video games, so that kind of graphics-intensive use is not a factor.
b) An increasing number of my DVDs are from high-definition originals of European telecasts of stage performances (dual layer regular DVDs (DVD-9), not Blu-Ray or HD_DVD)

Thanks as always for your help and opinions.

And also - a public thanks to ScottC for his previous invaluable help in determining some other configuration issues ^ :-:

pseudoswede

I was in the same boat as you, and I also use my laptop for about the same purposes (no gaming, CAD, etc.).

I eventually decided to go with the SXGA+ screen. I love all of the real estate on the screen, and the graphics are very crisp and clean.

FWIW, I bought the Asus Z96Js.

T2500 2GHz proc (mounted with Arctic 5 Silver thermal compound)
15.4" SXGA+ glossy screen
ATI x1600 256mb video card
DVD burner
2GB ram
120gb hd
a/b/g wireless + Bluetooth 2.0

Definite overkill for my needs, but I wanted some future-proofing (no plans to upgrade to Vista anytime soon), and I got a phenomenal deal on the processor. Vendor installed proc and burner, I purchased the RAM and HD seperately and installed myself. Spent $1199 total on the whole thing.

number_6

I would only buy the highest res screen possible, but it depends on your eyesight.

Cons: fonts and icons get very small and sometimes cannot be resized

Pros: extra real estate and sometimes higher screen quality (the latter is not always true, but often enough to be a consideration). Also 14.1 screens currently are higher quality than 15.4 screens for the most part (and there is a huge difference between best and worst available screens).

DVD playback quality is mostly determined by the graphics chip being used. Some have much better DVD-oriented features. ATI is a lot better than nVidia for DVD quality, for example. Intel GMA 950 seems to be pretty good (surprisingly so -- I guess Intel targeted this specifically).

nmenaker

personally, today I would NOT by the highest rez possible, WXGA or ultra xga or whatever they area calling it. I just had a T60 with WXGA, in my opinion, at the native resolution it was not usable. I have very good eyesight, but could simply not use it. I would go with SXGA today on anything more than 14". I went with XGA on a smaller X60, which is about right on the 12" screen. It could be a BIT more than XGA, but SXGA would be just too small.

Advice. Go to a store, and try to look at the native display on a screen size and with the resolution you are going to buy.

jk2317

Good luck with that... all the retailers I know only carry low end laptops == low res screens.

Unfortunately, it's rather a personal preference thing. As far as I'm concerned, it's obvious you'd want as many pixels as possible. Not for DVD's or for "clarity" or whatever... that's BS--You want as many as possible so you can DO as much as possible. It's rare than I've got fewer than 3-4 applications open at a time (sometimes more like 8-10), and the less switching between them, the better.

The opposite side of that coin is, as mentioned, eyesight... some people just can't stand the high DPI screens.

FWIW, I love my WSXGA+ (1680 x 1050) 15.4" ThinkPad and would never personally buy anything less. The office is buying me a new Macbook pro (1440 x 900, 15.4") and I'm worried that will feel cramped. I'm a spoiled brat about computers though

nmenaker

bestbuy has a good selection of sony and tosh wsxga lappys

jk2317

Oh right, 17" monsters. I forgot about those. I had assumed the OP meant 15"-class (though he doesn't say). OP?

Also I very much doubt you'll find an SXGA (not WSXGA -- SXGA is 1600 x 1200) at Best Buy.

Really we should be talking in DPI. The WSXGA and SXGA at 15" are around (IIRC) 130DPI. The 1280-class (XGA, WXGA) are around 95-100 DPI at that size. You won't find any 130 DPI notebooks at Best Buy.

Non-NonRev

So sory to have not mentioned that - 14" screen.

One of the major considerations, of couse, is to get a machine that is under 5 lbs. and that will run under airline seat power (AA-style or Empower). The old laptop that I am replacing drew only 47 watts; that machine ran flawlessly on an iGo Juice 70 - the machine I am going to get is rated to use the same Juice unit (with a different tip, of course).

Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far - as usual, the usefulness of responses in this fourm is very high ^

jk2317

Well, you're talking about a pretty high-res screen, then. I agree that it would be best to find one to look at yourself, but I think that will be difficult.

So, just know yourself... Are you old enough to have started using reading glasses? Do you have a hard time reading very small text? If not (like me for a few more years, anyway...) I strongly recommend the higher resolution screen. Especially if you're any kind of "power user" at all (multitasking!!!). If you have trouble with small text, then you might be better served by the lower DPI screen, at the cost of what I call "screen real estate."

If you're borderline... well my WSXGA+ ThinkPad has an easy-to-access mode that switches quickly to WXGA (1280x1024) mode by pressing Fn-[Spacebar]. If you come across things every now and then that are too small to comfortably read, you can make that switch quickly, and then switch back. If you are going to spend the bulk of your time at WXGA, you'd be better off with a native WXGA screen, to avoid the artifacts that come from using a non-native resolution.

I keep saying WXGA and WSXGA+ -- keep in mind those are the widescreen counterparts of the resolutions you're considering... so just substitute!

jk2317

Hmm... I just noticed your "AARP Junior Cadet" status.

Not sure if that means you should go XGA, or squeeze in one last SXGA while you still can...




Good luck deciding... care to tell us what machine you're considering? (Just for curiosity-- all my resolution advice stands up for any manufacturer)

Non-NonRev

You must be psychic, this is exactly my situation. I've worn glasses (nearsighted) since my teen years, but still get by without readers (the only difference I notice is when colored or shaded text is printed on a color background - especially in low light.

The candidate machine is a Fujitsu S7110:

http://store.shopfujitsu.com/fpc/Eco...o?series=S7110

kennycrudup

I'm waiting for > WUXGA resolution, personally. The way I work, 1920x1200 still isn't enough!

jk2317

Jeez man, you're crazy. I can't bring myself to more than 130 dpi. My desktops are a different story of course, since I don't have to squeeze into a 15" screen. My new employer is forcing me to choose between 1x30" and 2x24" screens... decisions!

jk2317

Well... it's a tough call, I admit. I did the calculation this time. We're talking about 91.4 dpi for the XGA and 125 dpi for the SXGA. That's a 30% shrinkage in individual pixels (conversely, that's 30% more screen space!).

I think I'm going to vote SXGA. I like high res that much, and since you don't use readers I bet you'll be ok. I started the near-sighted business at the same age as you, but it sounds like you've got 20 years on me, so I can't really speak to how you'll handle the smaller pixels.

My final comment is on Windows Vista -- will you be using that? If so, then I become more certain you should get the high res screen. That's because it uses more sophisticated vector-based graphics, and easily scalable text. Put simply, it means that even if you don't like things tiny (so you can fit lots on the screen), you can blow things up in very attractive ways at your screen's native resolution. The net result will be a clearer more attractive image at the same "real" image size as the lower-resolution screen (you know, that "clearer picture" business I told you to ignore in my first response ).

So... in summation... if you're getting XP, I lean moderately towards the high-res screen. If you're getting Vista, I confidently recommend the high res.

kennycrudup

Well, I'm so used to this 17" Vaio A790 that I couldn't (wouldn't!) go to anything smaller. My work performance (software for and on Linux) increases with being able to see multiple terminal windows across a screen, so the more pixels the better. My (corrected) 42-yo eyes don't even strain.

This thing is starting to grow dead pixels (it was 100% when I got it, but it goes nearly everywhere I do and surely takes it's share of shuffles and bangs) and I'm in the market for something new soon (mostly to get a Dual-Core processor so I can turn on SMP). I see they have 20" models now, but if they're "only" still at WUXGA, then I'll stick with a 17".