NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Sager & Clevo Notebook Forums › Sager & Clevo Notebooks › Yet more complaints on LCD resolutions: Too High
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Yet more complaints on LCD resolutions: Too High - Page 3

post #41 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicRobin
Alright. My point is simple: SXGA is extremely rare for laptop displays. Find me a laptop that has this resolution! Oh, you will, there is ONE: the Acer.

I might be wrong, but I *think* Apple's wide screens aren't 16:10. I own a 3-years old wide screen PowerBook (which is why I'm entitled to say that, in my opinion, wide screen sucks), and it's 3:2 - meaning it's less wide-screen than 16:10 wide screens.

WQXGA is where we are now, and it might be possible to go even better than this later on. LCD technology is going to be obsolete with new, better flat screens coming, with possibly even bigger res.
Do you mean you can't find a 17" laptop with SXGA? Yes, Acer is the only one because they are using an Acer LCD desktop panel, and everyone else is using widescreen panels from either Hitachi or LG/phillips that were designed for laptops. Hence, why the Acer is much heavier for just the computer without the harddrive or ram installed. If you're looking for regular 15" 16" or smaller regular SXGA LCD laptops, they are everywhere.

Here's the link to your Apple WUXGA, it's been on the market for many years.
http://www.apple.com/displays/acd23/
post #42 of 93

I can see all points of view...

I can see all points of view... here is the main problem... LCDs just do not look good at anything but native resolution. THe problem is that there is not a single "good for all applications" resolution at a given screen size. For my work I want the highest resolution possible... text size is of secondary concern. I want screen real estate to be MAX! For gamers, I have NO IDEA why you people want higher res screens. The mobile video cards just cannot handle playing games at these higher resolutions, especially in the near future of coming games. 1440x900 is PLENTY for games at the current state of hardware. Anyone who thinks having a super duper res screen is good for gaming is nuts with the mobile 9700 as your video card. For surfing the internet and word processing etc. etc... why would you buy a uber laptop for that anyway. Get a cheaper lower res laptop and you will be much happier and your eyes will thank you!


So in conclusion there should be only two types of people buying one of Sager's Uber laptops... eg. portable supercomputers like the 8790 is.

1. Game players... who honestly would be crazy to go with anything other than the 1440x900 screen right now, unless they like blurry graphics from rezzing down or slide show framerates that are inevitable with the high res screen because the video card will not be able to drive that high of resolutions, espeically with games that are coming out in the very near future.

2. People that do high end graphics, editing, or sound etc. etc..... In other words, professionals doing work that needs all the screen space they can get, should go for the higher res screen.

For everyone else, (those who are not gamers, or professionals) why anyone would buy one of these uber laptops is beyond me, they don't really need it... maybe it is to look cool? And if that is describing you, then buy a laptop that has a resolution that lets you read text comfortably for your tastes. But for most people buying one of these mini supercomputers, the size of the text really does not matter. If it were up to me I would have 2048x1536 screens! As I rarely need to read text for what I do for a living.... I need power, and high resolutions. Ironic that my 8790 is 1440x900 huh?! Maybe SEMC and I should trade 8790s.... what do you say SEMC?



Regards,
Sean
post #43 of 93
Quote:
1. Game players... who honestly would be crazy to go with anything other than the 1440x900 screen right now, unless they like blurry graphics from rezzing down or slide show framerates that are inevitable with the high res screen because the video card will not be able to drive that high of resolutions, espeically with games that are coming out in the very near future.
Riiiiight, because the current Sager models have such a hard time playing current games at 1600x1200, we all have to switch to 800x600 to get 8fps!
post #44 of 93
Frankly, if the market was there as you keep suggesting it is, I am absolutely certain the manufacturer's would be filling the demand.

Its like the situation with the car makers building SUV and sports car gas guzzlers, don't they realize we are running out of oil? Guess what, with few minor exceptions (Ferrrari, Porsche, Lamborghini, etc) the primary criteria for the manufacturer's choice of what they build is what will sell. Yeah, marketing hype can influence the public some, but for the most part, big whacking gas guzzlers is what they want to buy. Yes, sure, the marketing supports that but at the bottom line, its what the people want. If there were truly a market for a small, high efficiency car, you can bet the car makers would be building it by the giga-gross and the marketing would be hyping small and efficiency to the max.

Meanwhile, I say "BRING IT ON". The problem isn't too high a resolution or too fast a processor or too big a hard drive, its not that stuff is too good, its simply not good enough. If anything, the manufacturer's are way too timid.
post #45 of 93
... my 2 cents for what it's worth...

I didn't know what the heck UXGA was until I started shopping for an Alienware (and ultimately a Sager). When I went to Best Buy and CompUSA and Circuit City (the biggest non-internet computer resellers in the country), NONE of their models had UXGA. Maybe that was just an artifact of my location (Boston), but I think that most consumers get by just fine with regular resolutions and only a small percent of cutting edge retailers are going to use (or make available) the cutting edge hardware.

Personally I bought a UXGA because pictures (and therefore graphic imaging software) and movies look better. I realized that text might be harder to read, but I definately feel that I am using the extent of this LCD and do so everyday... (UT2004 looks awesome at 1600X1200 ~ 35fps).

Plus this UXGA in particular has a fantastic viewing angle radius.

I think that there will always be hardware "improvements" available, but that does not neccesarily mean that these "improvements" will become the norm.
post #46 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amir
Riiiiight, because the current Sager models have such a hard time playing current games at 1600x1200, we all have to switch to 800x600 to get 8fps!
If you think your computer is going to be able to run the high end games coming out in the next 6 months to a year at highest quality setting at 1600x1200 with a 9700, you are in for a nasty surprise. Here is a reality check for you... just how good can your computer run the Nature scene tests in 3DMark2003 at 1600x1200, or for that matter the rest of the tests in 3dmark2003? That is the level that near future games are going to be... Far Cry is not that difficult of a game, really, for high end video cards on the desktop, so high resolutions are fine there....but how well does it run at 1600x1200 with everything set to high quality on your laptop? Runs close to the boarder of acceptable on my 8790 at 1440x900.... Playable and reasonably smooth...but just. So an 8790 with a 1680x1050 screen will only do worse! I very much doubt you can play Far Cry at 1600x1200 with everything at high quality at a decent framerate. It may be playable... but not smooth, and not what most gamers would want. How can you even suggest that two similar configured 8790s, one with 1440x900, and one with 1680x1050 that the 1440x900 is not going to be able to play games at higher image quality?! Of course it is. Resolution is not all there is to image quality. With 1440x900 you can have better shadows, better reflections, better lighting, better anisitropic filtering, better antialiasing, etc. etc. and have better framerate too.

I stand by my assertion that for gamers 1440x900 with the mobile 9700 is the sweet spot. You will get more image quality, and the overall gaming lifetime of your laptop will be longer, by going with the 1440x900 screen.

For those working in Photoshop, 3D work, video editing, sound editing, scientific research and simulations etc. etc. the higher res screen is the best choice.

For everyone else... a lower res cheap laptop would be the smart choice. Who needs this kind of power other than the above?
post #47 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by exe
Do you mean you can't find a 17" laptop with SXGA? Yes, Acer is the only one because they are using an Acer LCD desktop panel, and everyone else is using widescreen panels from either Hitachi or LG/phillips that were designed for laptops. Hence, why the Acer is much heavier for just the computer without the harddrive or ram installed. If you're looking for regular 15" 16" or smaller regular SXGA LCD laptops, they are everywhere.
I'm looking for a SXGA screen. I don't care about the screen size (it can be 14", 15", 16"...).

So you're telling me SXGA laptops are EVERYWHERE? Really? Now you have me interested here. Could you give me the name of several models that sport SXGA screens?

I have not found ONE apart the Acer, and no one else did. And believe me, many people are searching for the SXGA screen. The only decent computer that seemed to have it was the 8890, but they stopped producing it.

Since you seem to see SXGA laptops "everywhere", then please share a few brands & models -- I'm sure a lot of people will be interested here, including myself.

Quote:
Here's the link to your Apple WUXGA, it's been on the market for many years.http://www.apple.com/displays/acd23/
'Your'?

You misunderstood me, I wasn't talking about desktop LCDs. They are a completely different matter. I was talking about laptops, and precisely 15" Apple "widescreen" laptops. They aren't 16:10 but 2:3. Take the PowerBook for instance: it's a 1280x854 (and that's not 16:10).

http://www.apple.com/powerbook/specs.html
post #48 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicRobin
I have not found ONE apart the Acer, and no one else did. And believe me, many people are searching for the SXGA screen. The only decent computer that seemed to have it was the 8890, but they stopped producing it.

Since you seem to see SXGA laptops "everywhere", then please share the brands & models -- I'm sure a lot of people will be interested here, including myself.
Umm, most Sagers, most Dell's. I'm getting ready to buy a laptop so i've been looking around a lot the last couple months, and i found that most laptops you configure and buy online you can get with SXGA. Some don't have the option of UXGA, but most have the SXGA option. True, most laptops bought in stores don't even go up to SXGA, but most of the ones i've found online do.
post #49 of 93
Chickenmaster, sorry to be blunt, but this is BS.

Sager has no model with an SXGA screen, and I should know, since I purchased the now-discontinued 8890 that is the only model in the Sager line that had an SXGA screen.

For anything higher than XGA, Dell doesn't sell anything else than wide screens.
post #50 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARQUISDARQUIS
Yeah, those folks at Los Alamos have notebooks, because they use them like most people would use calculators. They just need calculators that are beyond pale. And most people who should be using a calculator don't these days, they use a notebook instead, which is like crushing walnuts with a 2 ton hydraulic press. But it sure is cool.
This thread has been rather interesting to read through. I especially like the reference to Los Alamos (where I work) - and yeah, it really is like that! As far as screen resolutions go, I say buy the one that works for you. I probably fall somewhere inbetween the extremes - I love my SXGA screen - it's the perfect size for what I need at the moment (surfing the net, gaming, graphics production, video editing etc). Though I must admit a UXGA screen would be nice at times at home. At work I'm spoiled with dual 20.1" SXGA LCD monitors
post #51 of 93
quicktip: to easily see how your screen/browser, etc. handles the different font sizes, and potentially correct any problems a setting might cause, simply:

Hold down Ctrl while moving your mouse wheel up/down.

It will change your font size. This works in IE, but not in Mozilla. In Mozilla, you would need to go to edit ->preferences->fonts

Some web pages do a great job of scaling, like yahoo's homepage. Others are horrible, like anything on AOL.

Mozilla is a simple, easy download and installation, and the transition from IE to mozilla is almost completely painless. you don't even have to get rid of IE. I have also found mozilla to be a far superior product, with built in pop-up blockers, and additional security features that have put a stop to a lot of malicious crap i used to get all the time with IE. The download is small, and it's FREE.

MD, you are precisely right, i think. People see a higher number on a computer and immediately assume it is better and they should get it. My stepdad has a GeForce4 TI (4600?) on his computer....he paid extra for it from Dell....the only games he ever plays are solitaire and minesweeper, but boy the marketing guys convinced him he needed it. He also got the Dell LCD monitor. Can't remember the resolution it displays at natively, but it's high, greater than 1024x768. In any case, at native resolution it is sharp and crisp and clear... and the text is too small for the old man's eyes. However, it drives me nuts to look at the blurry blurry screen when it's in a necked down resolution. Apparently it doesn't bother him, because he blew a nut when i changed the monitor to it's native reso., even after i showed him how to increease the font size....aparently his eyes are bad enough that he doesn't notice the blurry, as well as not being able to see the smaller text. He also got a DVD burner he never uses, and over 100GB of free disk space on his hard drive he'll never use, except when i come over and transfer files to his computer so I can burn them on DVD's with his burner!

bottom line is that people buy computer stuff without having any idea what to do with it or what it's for or if they need it or have any use for it. Most people also aggresively fear and avoid having to make any changes to the set way that they interact with and use their computers (unless they are alpha geeks like many of us who just like to play all day with their toys). Most manufacturers aggresively pitch their latest and greatest technology and products without taking the time to educate their customers on what any of it means or does, and without taking any time to understand what their customers true needs are. This is a recipe for frustration for anyone who is not a geek, as it inevitably means that powerful, complex tools will be placed in the hands of people who have very little idea how to use them, and usually very little need for them, who usually end up either pissed at the manufacturer, the OS vendor, the computer itself and computers in general, and often with a broken computer as they vainly mangle their machine in an attempt to make it work the way they want it to. Add in that MS has really done an awful job (i think) at making "under the hood" settings changes for computers intuitive and easy to work with, and it's no wonder people get confused.

This is why i have a t-shirt that says "NO! I WILL NOT FIX YOUR F**CKING COMPUTER!"

Incidentally, though, anyone posting in these forums about being unhappy with their selected screen resolution doesn't really have a right to. This forum is filled with pages and pages of information and opinions about the different reso's, and which reso's are more adequately suited for what tasks and the differences between them. Most importantly, it seems that every other post on screen resolutions states that most of all it is a matter of individual preference, and that everyone should go to bestbuy and compare the different screen resolutions b4 making a decision. So it's not like there wasn't plenty of advice available here b4 you bought. And if you bought without doing any research, well i guess u learned a valuable lesson.
post #52 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urvile
quicktip: to easily see how your screen/browser, etc. handles the different font sizes, and potentially correct any problems a setting might cause, simply:

Hold down Ctrl while moving your mouse wheel up/down.

It will change your font size. This works in IE, but not in Mozilla. In Mozilla, you would need to go to edit ->preferences->fonts
w00t! Neat trick. Thanks

BTW- I'm using a "Mozilla" product and that trick works just fine
Props to Firefox 0.8 for being great except for sad performance in its Japanese display abilities (IE's got the edge there).
post #53 of 93
Thread Starter 
It finally happend, took a while, but now an intelligent discussion is underway.

Thanks go to Magic Robin for his insights and calm postings: dpi, resolutions, pointing out that not everyone likes wide screen aspect notebook displays (and it should be noted that Dell's latests and greatest machines are all wide aspect 15.4).

1) VicG, no I can't/won't buy crap. I am a gamer and really like my 8790 w/ 1440x900 resolution. Text is perfect and games run fine. If IBM made an affordable computer that wasn't crap, I'd have bought it already. As for pushing tech, go ahead and push it past the capabilities of the current operating systems, and graphics cards...Yeah! now the Autumun desktop looks really pretty now, because that's about all you will be able to see.

exe: If the 4790 series did what I wanted, I'd have bought it and saved about $1000.

Nic216: Thanks for the McDonalds analogy. I'm for the improvements in technology, but I think that we are begining to see a threshold where the software has to evolve before we can continue. Also, affordable video cards (not the $500 ones) are just now catching up with the resolutions in regards to their power and pushing the graphics engines of current games at high resolutions. (Aside: I'm looking forward to the new ATI cards so I can play Far Cry at 1600 x 1200 on the desktop I'm going to build by the end of this year).

Skank2001: Brilliant. Two types of power users explained. Gamers are a legitamate market force and while gaming notebooks are just now coming to the fore, the point is that now manufacturors are putting non-gaming friendly screens on the machines. I love gaming at 1440x900, it's great, but the mobility 9700 card just barely keeps up with acceptable fps in UT2K4 with everything on and high detail and in Far Cry also.

I want the options available. Now, even PC Torque has removed the WXGA screen from the 8790 and replaced it (as the only option) with a WSXGA+ screen. I sure hope mine doesn't break. The problem is options aren't available. Once a better screen comes out the prior screen for that model goes away.

Marqui: You have a point hidden in there. The technology isn't good enough yet. The high res screens are nice, but the software can't keep up: games are just now getting around to supporting wide aspect screens, new web browsers are just now coming out to support the altered aspects, etc. The hardware can't keep up. The internal video cards have always lagged behind the desktop tech, as a result the cards are barely keeping pace with the screen increases. Our notebook vid cards have to be specially designed to support our odd resolutions and non standard drivers have to be written for them. From what I can tell, the Omega ATI drivers still won't properly recognize my card (sure if I want to rewrite the source code I can do it manually, but who wants to do that?).

Urville: thanks for the tip. works great.

Amir: you are an obstinate ass. [Picard voice]: Get off my thread!
post #54 of 93
Thread Starter 
By the way Fried Toast, what's the difference between FireFox and Mozilla? Which is better? Today I had a computer friend recommend FireFox to me to replace IE as it reduces the spyware/pop-ups, and loads pages differently.
post #55 of 93
You're welcome
post #56 of 93
it is called mozilla firefox
post #57 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEMC
By the way Fried Toast, what's the difference between FireFox and Mozilla? Which is better? Today I had a computer friend recommend FireFox to me to replace IE as it reduces the spyware/pop-ups, and loads pages differently.
Firefox is more streamlined than mozilla so it is like IE but faster and better. It also has tabbed browsing and popup blocking built in.
Mozilla has many other features that firefox doesn't such as email support, chatroom support, and the like. It's also supposedly more stable and a little slower than Firefox but both are more stable than IE in my opinion.

Edit: I use both in addition to Opera, another quality browser.
post #58 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicRobin
I'm looking for a SXGA screen. I don't care about the screen size (it can be 14", 15", 16"...).

So you're telling me SXGA laptops are EVERYWHERE? Really? Now you have me interested here. Could you give me the name of several models that sport SXGA screens?

I have not found ONE apart the Acer, and no one else did. And believe me, many people are searching for the SXGA screen. The only decent computer that seemed to have it was the 8890, but they stopped producing it.

Since you seem to see SXGA laptops "everywhere", then please share a few brands & models -- I'm sure a lot of people will be interested here, including myself.


'Your'?

You misunderstood me, I wasn't talking about desktop LCDs. They are a completely different matter. I was talking about laptops, and precisely 15" Apple "widescreen" laptops. They aren't 16:10 but 2:3. Take the PowerBook for instance: it's a 1280x854 (and that's not 16:10).

http://www.apple.com/powerbook/specs.html
Here's a quick and dirty search of SXGA laptop screens. There are 3 pages of it:

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_a...xga/page_id=13
post #59 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEMC
It finally happend, took a while, but now an intelligent discussion is underway.
I totally agree with fully for the first time. Except the intelligance comes from others.

Remember this: http://notebookforums.com/showthread...963#post171963 Follow the next five or six postings - or to the end - it's educational.

Still monitoring for a few minutes a day. Have to see what a few of my favorite ig-gits and friends are up to and I see that you have remained in the "tunnel".

For those that wondered: SEMC is/was not a cause for me to vacate/limit my presence in this forum. It's a time and material thing. Either I can spend a lot of extra time working and make a lot of money or spend a lot of time here and confound the likes of SEMC. I like the money --- even though in SEMC's case it could be a close call.

Starting Monday, it's about three months of extreme toil and then... I'll be back to normal as far as the free time goes.

SEMC, remember, that your opinion works for you; however, won't work for me. The "sweet spot" for me is the WSXGA+. Sight unseen, I suppose you could argue that it is not good; however, once viewed, you might even have to buckle down and buy one.... I can just imaging the rants and raves about the "quality" of the screen when you do so.

Take Care, and tend to you lessons.

Yes - This is a "Flame" (of sorts)
post #60 of 93
You are back?!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sager & Clevo Notebooks
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Sager & Clevo Notebook Forums › Sager & Clevo Notebooks › Yet more complaints on LCD resolutions: Too High