New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Help - Screenshot(s) Please

post #1 of 21
3/5/04 at 8:05am
Thread Starter 
Okay, I'm in the final stages here of trying to make a decision...

I am hoping someone is willing to post a screenshot of their 51m for me with the 15.4 WSXGA+ at exactly half native resolution - if that's an optional resolution.

I will be using the lappie in my work as a web developer and when I go out to demo websites on it I would like to know what to expect it to look like at 840x525. I would also like to see a screenshot at whatever the closest resolution is to 1024x768 in a wide screen equivalent.

I think these resolutions are important to showcase a website on because many are designed to be rendered at 800x600 to 1024x768 - about 85% of users browse at these resolutions these days - the rest are mostly at higher resolutions.

I am expecially interested in how text displays when not in native resolution.

Do me a favor and capture this link as a good example for me if at all possible:

http://www.techwebsolutions.com/examples.htm

Thanks in advance!

Bobby G
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 21
3/5/04 at 9:45am
Web development is passe. You should quit your job and just buy the lappie without regard to the resolution. I personally write all my apps to fit the 16.9 ratio because I am cool like that.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 21
3/5/04 at 10:33am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthBeavis
Web development is passe. You should quit your job and just buy the lappie without regard to the resolution. I personally write all my apps to fit the 16.9 ratio because I am cool like that.
How's life in that cardboard box treating you?

Thanks for the comedic relief this morning.

Okay, someone, screenshot?...
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 21
3/5/04 at 11:27am
I could provide some screen shots for you but I doubt that they will be of any use because they will only look as good (or as bad) as the display with which you will be viewing them on. I think a better approach would be for me to set my 15.4" display to the resolutions you are looking for and try to take a digital picture of the actual display. I don't know how good they will come out but I will attempt this later tonight - unless someone else beats me to it.

-Geed
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 21
3/5/04 at 12:18pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geed
I could provide some screen shots for you but I doubt that they will be of any use because they will only look as good (or as bad) as the display with which you will be viewing them on. I think a better approach would be for me to set my 15.4" display to the resolutions you are looking for and try to take a digital picture of the actual display. I don't know how good they will come out but I will attempt this later tonight - unless someone else beats me to it.

-Geed

I didn't think about that - I guess a pic would be best. Thanks for your help Geed!
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 21
3/5/04 at 12:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaZor
I didn't think about that - I guess a pic would be best. Thanks for your help Geed!
why not go with the 16" screens o you can have 800X600 or 1024X 780 resolutions you want?
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 21
3/5/04 at 12:43pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamaster14
why not go with the 16" screens o you can have 800X600 or 1024X 780 resolutions you want?
Yup, the 15" or 16" seems to make the most sense right now. This is why I am wondering what to expect on the other two considerations - the 17" and the 15.4 wides.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 21
3/5/04 at 1:26pm
I have the 16.1 inch display and I do all my web dev work on it, Director, Flash, 3dsmax, fireworks...etc.

I usually run at 1024 which is my preferred resolution. While not as crisp as it would be in the native 1600 res, the ATI9600 does an outstanding job IMHO outside its native resolution. After having the opportunity to test 2 A51m2's (one with the Nvidia5600 the other the ATI9600) I can clearly state that the ATI card did a far superior job on font scaling and graphics than the Nvidia (which really got muddy at 1024).

Though why you would want the widescreen as a webdeveloper is beyond me. Heck sometimes even the native 1600x1200 res isnt enough real estate when I have all my palettes and toolbars open. Clearly working with Director I would advise against the widescreen.

Widescreen? Why to people keep calling it a widescreen? It makes it sound as if you are getting a wider display which is false. It is more suitable to refer to it as a "shortscreen".
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 21
3/5/04 at 1:28pm
Didn't I read somewhere that it's best to run LCDs on their max resolution (i.e., 16x12 for the 16.1")? Something about long term damage or shorter life/quality?
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 21
3/5/04 at 1:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerraFORM
Didn't I read somewhere that it's best to run LCDs on their max resolution (i.e., 16x12 for the 16.1")? Something about long term damage or shorter life/quality?
Not necessarily...it's best to run LCDs at their NATIVE resolution...and there is no direct correlation between resolution settings and lifespan durability...
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 21
3/5/04 at 1:33pm
Right, thanks Element. And the native resolution on the 16.1 is 1600x1200. Ahh, but correlation is not causation! I remember now, an AW tech support guy told me about some kind of long-term disadvantage in operations outside native rez.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 21
3/5/04 at 1:33pm
Thread Starter 
ITHanos, your 16.1... it is a 4:3? Or is it AW's "shortscreen" version?

Thanks!
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 21
3/5/04 at 1:40pm
Thread Starter 
My biggest concern at 1600x1200 is that some things may be a strain for me visually (I realize that I could tweak fonts and what not). The other concern is how it looks to clients and prospective clients... You know how it is.. They don't know anything about "native resolutions" or half native and the distortions associated with non-native resolutions, etc. To them the work may not look as good as it is or was intended to be viewed.

B
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 21
3/5/04 at 1:49pm
I don't do web design so I can't speak to that, however I had some recent poorly done eye surgery and I tried to back my 16.1 down to 1280x1024 and 1048 and although it was easier on my eyes it looks like HELL. It's very fuzzy and the response sucks.

The final solution was presented to me on this very board, by its helpfull members, and that was to stay at 1600X1200 and increase the font size. This worked far better then messing around with the native resolution. Since then I have had an ocular correction doen and I can see just fine now, but during that period large fonts were my only option.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 21
3/5/04 at 1:52pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time-Pilot
I don't do web design so I can't speak to that, however I had some recent poorly done eye surgery and I tried to back my 16.1 down to 1280x1024 and 1048 and although it was easier on my eyes it looks like HELL. It's very fuzzy and the response sucks.

The final solution was presented to me on this very board, by its helpfull members, and that was to stay at 1600X1200 and increase the font size. This worked far better then messing around with the native resolution. Since then I have had an ocular correction doen and I can see just fine now, but during that period large fonts were my only option.
great feedback! Do you have the ATI card?
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 21
3/5/04 at 2:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaZor
My biggest concern at 1600x1200 is that some things may be a strain for me visually (I realize that I could tweak fonts and what not). The other concern is how it looks to clients and prospective clients... You know how it is.. They don't know anything about "native resolutions" or half native and the distortions associated with non-native resolutions, etc. To them the work may not look as good as it is or was intended to be viewed.

B
i felt the sme way...on my desktop i use 800x600...

but on the AW i went to 1600X1200... if you use large icons and adjust the settings for windowsize, it looks nearly as large... only with much better clarity
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 21
3/5/04 at 3:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaZor
great feedback! Do you have the ATI card?
No sorry, on my M51 I have the GoFX
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 21
3/5/04 at 6:57pm

15.4" WSXGA+ screen samples

Okay, here are some pictures I took with my digital camera of some of the 15.4" screen resolutions. I picked the most standard resolution settings like 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024, and the native 1680x1050. I also included the "scaled" and "unscaled" shots of the lower resolutions for comparison.

The best way to compare these shots would be to right-click and download these images to your pc then open them up in a graphic viewer and overlay them on top of each other. Then you can switch back and forth between them...

First off: 1680x1050 full screen


Next: 1280x1024 full screen (scaled)


Next: 1024x768 full screen (scaled)


I'll post the unscaled images in the next post....

-Geed
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 21
3/5/04 at 6:59pm

15.4" unscaled samples

1280x1024 full screen (unscaled)


1024x768 full screen (unscaled)


Next post I will show you zoomed-in samples of each resolution....

-Geed
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 21
3/5/04 at 7:04pm

15.4" zoomed-in samples

1680x1050 native resolution zoom


1280x1024 zoom (scaled)


1024x768 zoom (scaled)


800x600 zoom (scaled)


All of these pictures were taken with the camera mounted on a tripod at the same distance from the screen (about 2.5 feet away).

Hope this helps you out!

-Geed
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home