NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Sager & Clevo Notebook Forums › Sager & Clevo Notebooks › 7-29-03 News updates discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

7-29-03 News updates discussion - Page 4

post #61 of 268
7/31/03 at 10:46am
Zachquiel... there already are 16" SXGA screens available. If you read closely you will notice that Adam's posts state that the screen that is the one the replaced the 16.1" UXGA on the 8887 will be the same one that is going in the 8890. Thus, we can already have pics if someone puts them together who has the new 8887 screens. That is the way I understand it from reading posts and anaylzing everyones data, especially Adam's. At the very least we know there is a 16" SXGA already for the 8887 that replaced the 16.1 UXGA... the key question of course is, is it better?
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 268
7/31/03 at 10:54am
Quote:
Originally posted by Berek Halfhand
Zachquiel... there already are 16" SXGA screens available. If you read closely you will notice that Adam's posts state that the screen that is the one the replaced the 16.1" UXGA on the 8887 will be the same one that is going in the 8890. Thus, we can already have pics if someone puts them together who has the new 8887 screens. That is the way I understand it from reading posts and anaylzing everyones data, especially Adam's. At the very least we know there is a 16" SXGA already for the 8887 that replaced the 16.1 UXGA... the key question of course is, is it better?
Im not sure if anybody has this screen though.. I think the 16 was just realeased and it was a 15.7.. Who's ordering a 8887 now, when the 8890 is right around the corner?
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 268
7/31/03 at 1:36pm
Quote:
Originally posted by nebulaskytrick
1920*1080 interlaced, at least in NTSC land.

1280*720 progressive.
Where are you getting your information? NTSC has a fixed resolution of 480 interlaced. A VHS puts out a signal of about 270X480. Your regular TV can usually display about 500X480. Professional monitors do about 720X480. High definition sets vary with what they can actually produce. Many of them can't produce the full 1080i signal. I have a degree in Mass Communication. You can google {ntsc lines resolution } for about 90,000 hits to back me up.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 268
7/31/03 at 1:42pm
I don't understand everyone rationalizing getting an SXGA screen because text will be easier to read. Every operating system and most programs I've ever used have had an option to enlarge font sizes. Larger fonts on a higher resolution screen = crisper, cleaner text, thus easier to read.

You 1600x1200 naysayers need to explore some of the basic display options in Windows
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 268
7/31/03 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally posted by io_burn
I don't understand everyone rationalizing getting an SXGA screen because text will be easier to read. Every operating system and most programs I've ever used have had an option to enlarge font sizes. Larger fonts on a higher resolution screen = crisper, cleaner text, thus easier to read.

You 1600x1200 naysayers need to explore some of the basic display options in Windows
LOL, well said...


Reply
Reply
post #66 of 268
7/31/03 at 2:00pm
Most people don't like to run their games in 1600x1200 res. It is slower, lots of wasted realestate, and a ton of games just don't support it. That leaves the user with a CRT, a black band around the display, or zooming the display in and making it fuzzy. I currently live with 1400x1050, but would LOVE to move down to a normal resolution of 1280. I find 1400 or better too small on anything less than a 19" even with large fonts.

This race to 1600x1200 on a 15" screen is just silly.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 268
7/31/03 at 2:24pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Straegen

This race to 1600x1200 on a 15" screen is just silly.
*a-hem* Riiiight.

And from what I've read in this thread, those wanting the 1600x1200 are those who use it for their work. When I have a gazillion windows open, it's rather convenient to not have them layered all over eachother because my screen can't handle it.

Forgive us if you want to go play games on the lower res available -- I play on the highest res my vid card can handle, but that's another story.

We at least want the option of a higher res screen. The 5670 offers this right now, the 8887 offers 1600x1200 last I checked. As already mentioned earlier, it comes down to your own preferences.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 268
7/31/03 at 2:27pm
Quote:
Originally posted by io_burn
I don't understand everyone rationalizing getting an SXGA screen because text will be easier to read. Every operating system and most programs I've ever used have had an option to enlarge font sizes. Larger fonts on a higher resolution screen = crisper, cleaner text, thus easier to read.

You 1600x1200 naysayers need to explore some of the basic display options in Windows
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 268
7/31/03 at 2:40pm
WAIT WAIT!!!! Doesn't the 5670's (and 5680's) UXGA screen have a better response rate (30ms rise+fall, is that right?) than the SXGA which was a 50ms rise+fall IRRC? Where is that thread where some guy posted the response times for the SXGA the UXGA and also a Dell LCD??? I can't find that....

Doggonit.out.

I am getting a 56XX!!!

Reply
Reply
post #70 of 268
7/31/03 at 2:42pm
Quote:
Who's ordering a 8887 now, when the 8890 is right around the corner?
I did and I expect it to arrive (my friend is bringing it to me) on August 3rd. I plan to post some pictures of the screen, so all you interested in what new SXGA looks like, be patient for a few more days.
If you want to know why I couldn't wait for 8890, it is because my friend planned his vacation in advance and he got a plane ticket for that day months ago (see location).

I know I'm gonna be very happy with 8887. And I won't even have to mess with
Quote:
some of the basic display options in Windows

Reply
Reply
post #71 of 268
7/31/03 at 3:04pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Doggonit
WAIT WAIT!!!! Doesn't the 5670's (and 5680's) UXGA screen have a better response rate (30ms rise+fall, is that right?) than the SXGA which was a 50ms rise+fall IRRC?
No one knows, at least no one on this forum, what is response time for the new SXGA. Some say new 16" SXGA is better than 16.1" UXGA (no ghosting), and Adam said several times now that Sager is getting very good feedback on new 16" SXGA.

I'm going to find out soon enough, anyway.

Reply
Reply
post #72 of 268
7/31/03 at 3:08pm
Quote:
Originally posted by jamesshuang
I think you people are a little overstating the arctic silver stuff. I had a thermal pad once on my Athlon 2000+ with a Volcano 7 fan. I decided that it's running heat: 57 degrees C was too high, so I bought a Volcano 9 and arctic silver. New temp: 55. With a brand new bigger fan/heatsink, and better heat conductor, I only lowered the temp by a measly 2 degrees, and that's with all the correct application techniques and all. Quite frankly, I'm not too impressed by arctic silver.
Heres a site with more info on CPU temps and thermal paste comparisons...

http://www.heatsink-guide.com/index.html

Glor
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 268
7/31/03 at 3:18pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SkyStrider
No one knows, at least no one on this forum, what is response time for the new SXGA. Some say new 16" SXGA is better than 16.1" UXGA (no ghosting), and Adam said several times now that Sager is getting very good feedback on new 16" SXGA.

I'm going to find out soon enough, anyway.

Yeah but I meant comparing the 5670's SXGA and the 5670's SXGA, someone has to know the specs for those... come on!

I saw the post a few weeks ago where some guy had all the numbers for the SXGA, the UXGA, and a Dell Ultrasharp LCD.

I can't find it now!!!

Doggonit.out.

I'm getting a 56XX!!!


Reply
Reply
post #74 of 268
7/31/03 at 3:19pm
Arctic silver is ****!
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 268
7/31/03 at 7:14pm
I'm happy that the 8890 screen is gonna be sxga. Since that is the curent res I have my screen set to and that is the res that I play my games on. Also I use my computer for work as well. I can see the need for more screen space for some people, but not for me.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 268
7/31/03 at 7:32pm
Think about this slacker... I have a 19 inch and 17 inch that I run on 1280x1024 and 1024x768 respectively, they look fine. The game that requires the most realestate for me is Ultima Online with its extra area for bags and such. 1280x1024 is optimal here.

On a 17 inch monitor 1280x1024 is even better than the 1024x768... so the lappy which has an equivlanet 17inch screen of a crt (some say 2 inches difference but that's a load of crap, do the math, actual for 17"crt is 16"... lcd... 16"... oh my!) is even better!
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 268
7/31/03 at 7:43pm
More power to you guys. If you like 1280x1040 resolution, then the SXGA is perfect for you.

It's us screen hog types that are crying over the loss of the UXGA n the 8890. Yes, I admit it, I am a complete screen hog - I find 1400x1050 cramped, and, call me a mutant, but I can read text at 1600x1200 on 15" just fine.

I just wish people would realize that one man's perfect screen is another man's nightmare to work with, and stop bashing each other over which screen is "better". It's personal preference - state your opinion and leave it at that. Just like Slacker did (nice post, Slacker).

-phubar
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 268
7/31/03 at 7:47pm
Quote:
Think about this slacker... I have a 19 inch and 17 inch that I run on 1280x1024 and 1024x768 respectively, they look fine. The game that requires the most realestate for me is Ultima Online with its extra area for bags and such. 1280x1024 is optimal here.
On a 17 inch monitor 1280x1024 is even better than the 1024x768... so the lappy which has an equivlanet 17inch screen of a crt (some say 2 inches difference but that's a load of crap, do the math, actual for 17"crt is 16"... lcd... 16"... oh my!) is even better!
Exactly. Some people dont relise that if you dont need the extra screen space, the uxga is unneeded. Though the people that do need it are getting screwed.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 268
7/31/03 at 7:58pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Slacker
Exactly. Some people dont relise that if you dont need the extra screen space, the uxga is unneeded. Though the people that do need it are getting screwed.
But they can always get an external lcd monitor with a higher resolution if they want.. Yes just sxga might be a bummer but it's not changing my mind
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 268
7/31/03 at 8:04pm
Mine neather. I've waited too long for the 8889...opps, i mean 8890.
Reply
Reply
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 › 7-29-03 News updates discussion