when is the wuxga 17" glossy screens comming out?

You're kiddin
WSXGA is small enough, I have to squint and basically put my face next to the screen when I am designing websites.

Not sure on an ETA - last I heard, PCTorque didn't even have an ETA.

3D modelling, CAD and image work can be nice to have the extra resolution, but I agree with you Fungo, it can make it more difficult to see. Each to their own.

apparently sager rejected the WUXGA screen that was sent to them for testing because of the sparkling pixels. it was also not a glossy screen. i think it was adam that said that other resellers would just slap on a nushield to make it glossy and then sell it.

there are other resellers who did not reject this screen. it is currently available from hypersonic/voodoo/eurocom. i could have had one of them shipped in my order this week, but when i found out that its just a glossy version of the mat screen i figured that this is the one that has teh sparkling pixels.

The trouble with doing that is when you're viewing at a smaller resolution, the image isn't as crisp because it's having to stretch the display over extra pixels. It's always much nicer to view stuff at native resolution.

I have personally checked out the drop-dead-gorgeous Sony 17 WUXGA screen. Text is very legible. Now, if Sager would only arrange to adopt this screen...

Here's a few links about native resolution plus calculating and adjusting dpi...

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;820286

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ew/highdpi.asp

http://www.qg.fi/screeninformation.html

http://www.qg.fi/screencalculator.php

LCD: WUXGA 17"
Native Resolution: 1920 x 1200 pixels
Number of Pixels: 2,304,000
Ratio Width:Height: 16:10 (1.60)
Screen Width: 14.4"
Screen Height: 9.0"
Screen Area: 130" inches squared
DPI: 133 (so to get windows standard 96 dpi you'll need to scale your display setting at 139%)

Additional specs:
XPS2 17" UltraSharp™ Wide Screen UXGA Display w/ TrueLife™
MegaPixels: 2.3 Mpixels
Pixel Pitch: 0.191 mm
Luminance/ Brightness: 185 cd/m2 (nits)
Horizontal Viewing Angle: +/ - 65 degrees
Vertical Viewing Angle: +/ - 45 degrees
Contrast Ratio: 300:1

Native res is pretty much the res that the screen was designed to run in. Anything other than native res is a "fit to screen" and not as crisp as it could be. Unlike CRTs, which do not have a native res, your best bet is to decide what res you want to run in the majority of the time (or all of the time) and get a screen with that as the native res.

A WSXGA+ screen (like the 9860) has a native res of 1600x1050 (or something close, can't remember exact numbers). So running at anything higher and you'll get virtual desktop (the desktop is actually bigger than your screen, and the screen pans around as you move the mouse close to the edges). Anything lower and it's not as crisp as it would be at the native res.

A WUXGA is 1920x1200, and the same applies, so unless you want to run in that res the majority of the time, I wouldn't bother. you should be able to get a second monitor that does support the other res you want to run though, i.e. a WUSXGA laptop with a native res of 1920x1200, running a second monitor running at 1600x1050, or vice versa.

Designing websites would be quite a bit different from doing CAD or visual effects and 3D graphics. You're audience is people on a computer, and for "best viewed at" sizes you need to cater to the majority (is it even at 1280x1024 now? I remember when the rule was 800x600). My work is for display on a movie screen, and the precision needed in CAD is similar. We need all the room we can get. Film frames are around 2048x1556 ungated, and 3D/2D/scripting/compositing apps have a LOT of screens and panels (usually all running at the same time), so the smaller these icons/windows/borders/text are, the better. There's a reason Apple makes a 30 inch screen that runs at higher than 2500x1600...

I'm on the same boat here. I refuse to use anything less than 1920x1200. If Sager wants Pro users to buy their product they need to give us Pro equiment. So come on Sager, just give us the damn UXGA we need

The sparkling issue you mentioned is a non issue...Adam or Luke reported awhile ago that Clevo decided against using the WUXGA screen you mentioned due to the sparkling issue. If they had gone with it, it would probably be available already. The new Dell screen on the XPS 2 is apparently a much better screen, as is the Sony screen. I expect Sager/PCTorque to make a a WUXGA screen available in April, around the time Dell begins shipping their XPS2.

so, are you saying that the Dell XPS2, does not have the sparkling AND that is a high quality display?

If so, that means that there is something other that the Sony-exclusive screen out there. Has anybody seen the UXGA screen of teh XPS2 yet?

im pretty sure that adam/luke never said that clevo rejected the wuxga sparkling screen, but instead, Sager rejected it. It was sent by clevo to all the resellers and they get to test it and decide if they want it. Sager didnt want it. other companies did. that is why the wuxga is currently shipping with the other companies.