Originally Posted by fs454
If they are bad enough, yes you can.
Draw a pound sign from top to bottom, and left to right on the screen. The middle "box" is where Sager replaces screens, if you have a dead pixel in the area.
I think the UXGA is way better, first because of the refresh rates. The UXGA is 30ms, and the SXGA is 50ms. I personally would never go over 30ms on an LCD for gaming, and a native resolution of less than 1600x1200 also scares me away from the SXGA(I always aim for a high native res, it looks great at 1600x1200 and I can see everything well)
Nope, the SXGA is 25ms.
Now, perhaps you meant SXGA+. Do not forget the +, it means a lot: different refresh rates, different screen quality, different viewing angles, different color depth, and different resolution. Unfortunately Sager discontinued the very good SXGA screen.
I find the UXGA excrutiatingly small. It is sharp, indeed, but it is small. And since it sucks with anything else than native resolution, you're stuck with microscopic, especially considering web designers tend to choose small fonts lately. My advice: if you have to change the default font size to find the screen comfortable, then it's too small. I would go with SXGA+, but it's really a matter of taste more than good/bad vision.
All depends on the screen estate you really need, and if you're ready to trade comfort for screen estate.
About dead pixels: I believe you have more chance to have dead pixels on a UXGA (which seems logical), but they will be less visible.