New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WideScreen 17" Sager? - Page 2

post #21 of 46
4/10/03 at 11:34pm
You guys can have the sis chipset and the other stuff

I'll just get the 8888 with the new springsdale motherboard and dual channel 400mzh ram with a m10 pro and perhaps a 3.2 prescote cpu lol.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 46
4/11/03 at 12:20am

More screen size ( 16.1" or 17" wide) ?

Which screen size has more room, or larger screen, A 16.1 inch (4:3) like on the 8888 or a new 17 inch wide screen (16:9).
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 46
4/11/03 at 2:38am
daddyb we dont know if the 8888 will have the 16 inch or the 17 inch

Reply
Reply
post #24 of 46
4/11/03 at 8:59am
Quote:
Originally posted by Direwolf
You guys can have the sis chipset and the other stuff

I'll just get the 8888 with the new springsdale motherboard and dual channel 400mzh ram with a m10 pro and perhaps a 3.2 prescote cpu lol.
lol we wish. I think ill stick with the 8888 if that comes out soon, I dont know about you guys but a widescreen would get on my nerves, just looking at the desktop like that and playing games, or modeling whatever I do.

Plus the performance, thats my main bit and 16.1" is plenty for me, dont want the thing to be any bigger then it already is lol
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 46
4/11/03 at 12:17pm

Re: More screen size ( 16.1" or 17" wide) ?

UXGA 1600x1200 (16" 8887)
WXGA 1440x900 (17" Clevo)

Unfortunately the 17" isn't WUXGA 1920x1200. Until then, the UXGA will have more room.

Quote:
Originally posted by daddyb
Which screen size has more room, or larger screen, A 16.1 inch (4:3) like on the 8888 or a new 17 inch wide screen (16:9).
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 46
4/11/03 at 12:55pm

When the 16.1" UXGA has more room than the 17"WXGA....

just one more serious riddle ...
What do you think?
Do you think a 15.4" WUXGA (1920x1200) Wide Display has more room, or larger screen
than a 16.1 UXGA (1600x1200)?
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 46
4/11/03 at 2:22pm
templegarden, you are talking about area in which case the 16.1 4:3 monitor has more physical area... actually it has more area than a 17" 16:10 monitor but who cares. I'm more concerned with pixel area so having a 17" 1920x1200 neats a 16.1" with 1600x1200 even though they physical area is smaller.

By the way you misquoted me
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 46
4/11/03 at 3:12pm

16:10 or 16:9

I'm not sure what the new LCD laptop widescreens are, but the standard is
16:9 not 16:10.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
-myrkat
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 46
4/11/03 at 3:21pm
I just want physical area, I could care less for pixel area

Im use to running 1074x768 anyway on my 18 inch crt monitor

Though saleen it would be nice if the 8888 has a normal 17 inch screen since you already know the D470 will have the screen that you want with the features that you want. So we all would come out in the end happy.

kill two pigs with one tomahawk missle so to speak
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 46
4/11/03 at 10:12pm

Re: 16:10 or 16:9

You are not wrong. 16:9 is a standard while 16:10 is a standard. 16:10 seems to be the chosen standard for computer displays and many wide screen tvs. There are however plasma and lcd tvs with 16:9 displays.

1440x900 is 16:10
(17" clevo, 17" apple)

1920x1200 is 16:10
(Cinema Display, 24" Samsung, 23" Sony, 23" Sun, 23" SGI, numerous tvs)


Quote:
Originally posted by myrkat
I'm not sure what the new LCD laptop widescreens are, but the standard is
16:9 not 16:10.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
-myrkat
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 46
4/11/03 at 10:18pm
I understand but at what point would it be too big? I have a hard time with large lcds that have lower resolutions because you can my eye can easily see the pixels. Maybe you need a nice projector running at 1024x768. It would still be portable

Quote:
Originally posted by Direwolf
I just want physical area, I could care less for pixel area

Im use to running 1074x768 anyway on my 18 inch crt monitor

Though saleen it would be nice if the 8888 has a normal 17 inch screen since you already know the D470 will have the screen that you want with the features that you want. So we all would come out in the end happy.

kill two pigs with one tomahawk missle so to speak
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 46
4/11/03 at 10:32pm
While im in the navy it will be kinda impossible to use a projector. Unless I want to go in the bathroom and use it....

20 inchs would be big enough for me, its not to big for me perhaps for you it would be. I want a desktop replacement that means a sizable monitor thats as big as what I have 18 inch or larger. If I wanted portability I would go for something besides the 5x or 8x. though the 8x imo is the true desktop replacement since you have room for 3 hds plus a dvdburner. I just dont understand why people complain about a desktop replacement laptop being to big I mean come on it is a Desktop Replacement after all
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 46
4/12/03 at 12:56am

Re: Re: 16:10 or 16:9

Quote:
Originally posted by saleen
You are not wrong. 16:9 is a standard while 16:10 is a standard. 16:10 seems to be the chosen standard for computer displays and many wide screen tvs. There are however plasma and lcd tvs with 16:9 displays.

1440x900 is 16:10
(17" clevo, 17" apple)

1920x1200 is 16:10
(Cinema Display, 24" Samsung, 23" Sony, 23" Sun, 23" SGI, numerous tvs)
I learn something new everyday. Did not know that 16:10 is a standard, too. Saleen, you seem quite knowledgable in this, is there a benefit/negative to 16:10 vs. 16:9 ?

-myrkat
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 46
4/12/03 at 5:36am

Re: Re: Re: 16:10 or 16:9

Well the benefit to of 16:10 on computer displays for me means that that the height is reasonable on a 17" screen and seems to be a good dimension for a full size keyboard with a hand wrest. I think that the 16:10 ratio came about via a compromise between 4:3 and 16:9 so that you could watch movies of either type without having to waste most of the display for 4:3 material.

16:9 in my opinion is really really nice for movies (especially nature or outdoor movies) b/c makes the scenes look expansive.

It is more comfortable to move eyes and head left and right rather than up and down. Humans can scan horizontally much better than vertically. This is not really why most Hollywood movies are close to 16:9 however. That's mostly because of ceiling height restrictions but it works out well since it matches with our physiology.

Quote:
Originally posted by myrkat
I learn something new everyday. Did not know that 16:10 is a standard, too. Saleen, you seem quite knowledgable in this, is there a benefit/negative to 16:10 vs. 16:9 ?

-myrkat
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 46
4/12/03 at 5:46am
Direwolf, I think 50" would be about the limit for me The larger the better. I'd be able to do work on the lower half of the screen while monitoring various things on the top half (tv, stocks, servers, security cameras )

I don't care too much about portability per say but I care about space and noise. I despise desktops now and thank goodness for Clevo notebooks. Without Clevo and competitors, I doubt that bigger names like HP, Sony, Toshiba, etc. would bother with desktop CPUs in notebooks or pushing the envelope with integration. They'd stick with the marketing nonsense of crippled mobile chips.

By the way, I was joking about the projector. The nice ones cost a fortune anyway and like you said, they wouldn't work well in the bowels of a ship.

Keep up the good work in the Navy.

Quote:
Originally posted by Direwolf
While im in the navy it will be kinda impossible to use a projector. Unless I want to go in the bathroom and use it....

20 inchs would be big enough for me, its not to big for me perhaps for you it would be. I want a desktop replacement that means a sizable monitor thats as big as what I have 18 inch or larger. If I wanted portability I would go for something besides the 5x or 8x. though the 8x imo is the true desktop replacement since you have room for 3 hds plus a dvdburner. I just dont understand why people complain about a desktop replacement laptop being to big I mean come on it is a Desktop Replacement after all
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 46
4/12/03 at 11:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: 16:10 or 16:9

Quote:
Originally posted by saleen
Well the benefit to of 16:10 on computer displays for me means that that the height is reasonable on a 17" screen and seems to be a good dimension for a full size keyboard with a hand wrest. I think that the 16:10 ratio came about via a compromise between 4:3 and 16:9 so that you could watch movies of either type without having to waste most of the display for 4:3 material.

16:9 in my opinion is really really nice for movies (especially nature or outdoor movies) b/c makes the scenes look expansive.

It is more comfortable to move eyes and head left and right rather than up and down. Humans can scan horizontally much better than vertically. This is not really why most Hollywood movies are close to 16:9 however. That's mostly because of ceiling height restrictions but it works out well since it matches with our physiology.
Well, as an Architect, I fully know and understand why the movies are "wide screen" - not so much our physiology, as you pointed out, but it's easier to fit more seats in a single-level movie theatre by going side-to-side, as it is in a theatre for opera and plays and such. They even had balconies in many, but it was still cheaper to go wide than high.

What I am wondering, is why 16:10? It's not THAT much of a compromise between 4:3 (let's call it 12:9 for ease of numbers) and 16:9. Why not make a 7:4 (14:9) display? or a 16:11? I guess 4:3 is also 16:12, so 16:12 vs. 16:9 - so I suppose 16:10 or 16:11 is the middle... nevermind!

So for computers, the 16:10 is the best compromise, as it is closest to the middle, but on the smaller side, and I think we can all understand WHY they did it: Less materials = cheaper. So in short, 16:10 was decided on because of money.

OK, I'm convinced.
-myrkat
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 46
4/12/03 at 11:52am
Thread Starter 

Re: 16:10 or 16:9

Quote:
Originally posted by myrkat
I'm not sure what the new LCD laptop widescreens are, but the standard is
16:9 not 16:10.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
-myrkat
16:9 is standard for TV, but most of original films are even wider than 16:9. I've messured ratio of several films, and it looks like original is between 16:7 and 16:6.

I think that standard for computers should be different from TV sets. When you watch movie in cinema, how much details you see on both sides? Especially if there are subtitles, you will notice when subtitle stretch from one side to another, you have to even move head to read it all.

I don't have need for such wide screen. When I had 21" screen, I replaced it for 19". It bothered me not to have all details in my vision, and I've noticed that I am moving head to catch details on opposite sides.

So I can say that I am supporting 16:10 standard more than 16:9 for computer usage. But I am not sure until I test it is it real better than 4:3.

Most development environments tend to use vertical panels, toolbars. It looks like ther is no need for too much hight on screen.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 46
4/12/03 at 11:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 16:10 or 16:9

Quote:
Originally posted by myrkat
16:10 was decided on because of money.
-myrkat
Hmmm... I don't think that's the reason. I think it's because of our physiology and because of a long history of movie screens.

Even though the displays have less material, it doesn't mean they are less expensive. I think the WXGA and WSXGA+ displays from Quanta and Compal will be cheaper in the long run (about a year) than the current UXGA lcds but it's the WUXGA, QXGA-W, and QUXGA-W that I'm interested in and those will absolutely not be cheaper. The last 3 res. I mentioned are the displays that are really replacing the UXGA screens of the previous generation. Most of the cost savings will come from process rather than materials (I have a friend in the business who has explained all of this to me).
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 46
4/12/03 at 12:11pm
Thread Starter 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 16:10 or 16:9

Quote:
Originally posted by saleen
Hmmm... I don't think that's the reason. I think it's because of our physiology and because of a long history of movie screens.

Even though the displays have less material, it doesn't mean they are less expensive. I think the WXGA and WSXGA+ displays from Quanta and Compal will be cheaper in the long run (about a year) than the current UXGA lcds but it's the WUXGA, QXGA-W, and QUXGA-W that I'm interested in and those will absolutely not be cheaper. The last 3 res. I mentioned are the displays that are really replacing the UXGA screens of the previous generation. Most of the cost savings will come from process rather than materials (I have a friend in the business who has explained all of this to me).
Anyone who has expirienced QXGA/QUXGA resoultions? If I am remember correctly Nec has those screens.

Also can someone help me with comparasion of 15.4" WUGXA and 15.1" UXGA? I don't care about number of pixels, size is important to me Having screen ratio and diagonal, can someone calculate height and width. (I dont like math)

Also it will help to compare 17" 16:10 and 16" 4:3 screen sizes.

Dell is marketing that WUXGA has 20% more space, and I dont trust them. Probably they are referring to pixel space, not inches.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 46
4/12/03 at 2:51pm
Thread Starter 

4:3 vs 16:10

New standards were very confusing about screen size, height/width ratio etc. Here is table which compares this two standards.


My impressions:
  • 15.4" Widescreens are superior only to 14" screens
  • 15.4" Wide and 15" standard are almost same, 15" slightly larger
  • 15.4" Wide inferior to 16" in all aspects except width.
  • 17" Widescreen height is almost same with 15" standard screens, but width gives 33% more space.
  • 17" Widescreen has more space than 16" standard, and probably will be better solution. I guess we will have finally space for full numeric pad.
  • 15.4" Looks like just marketing trick for consumers
  • 17" Look like this is the real imporvement
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sager & Clevo Notebooks