|so the difference is less than 200,00 pixels, not as drastic as your example withthe sagers....(-you)
Well first of all I did not state any specific example with the sagers, I only said that their notebooks with larger resolutions yielded more reported dead/stuck pixels than notebooks with more standard resolutions. I dont see how thats 'drastic'
You are correct that the difference is 200,000 pixels between 16.1 UXGA and 15.4 WSXGA+, however that is not taking into consideration certain color specific stuck/dead pixels. Each pixel on an LCD has 3 sub-pixels for red/blue/green, so you need to multiply the number of pixels an LCD has by 3 to accurately measure the % chance of a dead/stuck pixel.
1,920,000 x 3 = 5,760,000
1,764,000 x 3 = 5,292,000
So the difference here is actually 468,000 if you were to take into consideration color-specific stuck/dead pixels as well. Thats about an 11% greater chance of getting some sort of dead/stuck pixel if you opted for the 16.1 over the 15.4 screen :P
on a different note here:
|my point was sure larger screens with better resolution yield higer odds of dead pixels...
you also get a larger screen and a better picture! (-you)
I did not see you make that statement or point made anywhere until after I got technical...
all you said after my intial post, was sarcastically:
|with that logic the better screen would be like a 7" screen with 600x480 resolution
back on topic, for the cost of a 16.1 uxga screen, you will have a visually larger screen to look at, with typically better horizontal and vertical viewing angles. however with that in mind, you also will have a greater chance of getting some sort of stuck/dead pixel (11% to be accurate). while all of this dead stuck pixel business may not even matter for some, its just something a consumer should be aware of.