why do you keep saying uxga? you would never run these displays in UXGA. The WUXGA is a UXGA panel with extra pixels on the sides to make up the wide aspect ratio.
the only way you could possibly view UXGA fullscreen would be to stretch the width, which would be STUPID. Turn off screen stretching, and 1600x1200 would look EXACTLY the same as 1920x1200, except with black bars on the sides.
If you mean WSXGA, that's another story altogether. But there is NO rhyme or reason to run a "W" screen in a "non W" res, unless it's because that's what a game runs at.
If you use an external display for UXGA, then it's going to look perfect of course, as that has nothing to do with the laptop screen. But there is no rational reason to run these displays in non Wide mode. There is no benefit and it won't be more readable. I don't know why people think smaller is harder to read. it isn't. Fuzzier is harder to read. The more precisely text is written on a screen the easier it is to read. in the CRT world, smaller means harder to read, because it's too hard to make 3 color phosphurs which are side by side look like they are a single dot. LCD doen't have that problem. The colors are overlayed, not side by side, so the sharpness is unmatched.
But back to the uxga question. if you try to run these displays in uxga and full screen, you're asking to lcd panel to run all 1920 pixels to display a 1600 pixel picture, when it could have used 1600 pixels for the 1600, and used the other 320 for more desktop space. if you are somehow worried about an external monitor versus the lcd, that's not an issue, they don't need to be the same res. but if that's a concern, turn off scaling so the lappie doesn't try to make uxga fullscreen, it'll be the sharpest it can possibly be then.
otherwise, again, why are you worried about running the display in a non wide mode? if it's for games, don't worry, text will be fine, text in games is rarely small enough to need to be pixel perfect
oh, and when people say the lcd looks fuzzy, it's not fuzzy like bad crt's get. It's fuzzy compared to the native resolution. I just tried uxga and sxga, and the text looks almost the same as far as fuzziness. the difference is uxga text is FAT, the way a regular tv show looks when you try to strecth it to be full screen on a wide tv like i have. the letters look short and fat rather than normal. Also, there is no benefit to readability, it hurt readability. Take the letter F. in natvie res, each line of the F is a single pixel thick. It's sharpness is equal to you writing the letter F on a piece of paper with a nice ballpoint pen. that same letter F in uxga or sxga (on the wuxga screen), looks like that same letter F you wrote on the paper, after you RETRACE it several times and consistantly made it a little wider and and little wider, until you still know it's an F, but you also know it was dumb to have traced over it, and you did was make it look messy now. Same goes with say e's and s's. An e is perfect right now, umistakeable. Same with s. But both while in uxga mode look, well, smudged. Again, write a small s on a piece of paper, and write is very small. As long as you only draw it once, it's readable. But start tracing over it, and the gaps between the curved sections get filled in, and it becomes hard to define it's shape. that's what it looks like in uxga mode. But again, turn off screen scaling, so it's only using 1600x1200 pixels, it would look identical to how it does in wuxga, as both would be 1 to 1 pixel alignments.
So yes, it's fuzzy, but it's fuzzy like many crt's are normally. maybe not the super nice big ones, but the ones most of us have used for years. But it's still readable, just not as readable as leaving it in wuxga.
Please take no offense in this, just trying to understand why you're intersted in uxga with a wuxga screen, and give thoughts on it without knowing the why yet
guess i'm trying to "mind read" oooh, I got esp now hehe
