Alright people, I need some opinions here.
Which resolution would you choose? 1920x1200 or 1680x1050 for your 17in laptop?

I think the answer ultimately lies in what you will be using the laptop for. 1920x1200 allows for maximum screen space and would be better for photo/video/sound editing, while 1680 x 1050 would be more ideal if gaming was your prime concern. When I purchased my fx7 from Hypersonic, only the 1920 resolution was available, but suddenly they have put the 1680 resolution on their site, and I am defenitely considering changing it to the lower one. While I will be using my machine for lots of games, I will also be using it for various types of media editing, but I think I will be able to deal with the smaller resolution. Even with the Go 7800Gtx, 1920 would be extremely taxing on the video card, so I would rather run at a lower native resolution of 1680. What do you think?

According to anandtech's review of the Aviator EX7 (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2557&p=2), the resolution was 1920x1200, and the system was still pulling frame rates of 38fps at full resolution with all options on and 4x AA in Battlefield 2! However, what happens when games become more complex? I know the fx7's video card can be upgraded, but hopefully the 7800gtx won't be out of date for some time. Granted, I could always run a game at a lower resolution if I wanted better performance in the future. But this is my first notebook like this, and I don't know how bad a lower/non-native resolution would look...? Could I get some advice from users with experience in this area? Will running a lower resolution than the native resolution cause games too look washed out/blurry or is the difference not really that noticeable?

Also, ms/response time is a huge issue. Hypersonic's website says that both resolutions run at a horrendous 25ms. After contacting several vendors of D900T/D900k, it seems that 16ms is the real response time, but no one has been absolutely sure and I will make finding out the correct number my first order of business come Monday. One would think that the lower resolution would have a quicker response time, but you never know. I'll try and find the real ms times and post them soon as I find out.

Alright, sorry for the novel, any comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

You can always switch back and forth. The 1920x1200 is really good for watching DVDs and video because your getting the "Big Picture".

Games, do whatever your comfortable viewing it at, you dont have to push the limit because someone else says you have to cook it at that ratio.

I use 1900 by 1200 on my two monitors hooked to my AW ALX SLI rig.

Guys, I'm referring to the native resolution, and the available options are 1920x1200 or 1680x1050. Will I be able to display higher resolutions on the lcd with a 1680 x 1050 native resolution? If frame rates become an issue, I understand that I can always reduce the resolution for games if I get the 1920x1200 native resolution, but won't they look kind of crappy or washed out or something like that since they won't be running at the native resolution? I remember someone saying that before...

I have no problems with native or adjusted. It looks great. Granted at some point of playing with ratios you will get that distorted pixal but thats at a rate we all don't use anyway.

As long as you keep drivers up to date you will be fine.

Again its whatever your compfortable with, 1920 is kind of tiny on the print, so when I'm done with serious stuff (1650), I switch back to it.

I've never noticed a quality difference from native -> another resolution... of course none that wasn't expected. Can't say i didnt notice a difference going 1280x1024 -> 640-480.

Thanks for the replies guys.

I'm going to stick with 1920x1200 then.