I just measured the displays on a 15.4" widescreen HP NC8230 and a 15.1" Thinkpad T43 and came up with the following measurements:
HP: actual display is 13” by 8.15625” = 106.03125 sq inches
IBM: actual display is 12” by 9” = 108 sq inches
So far, the 15.1" display appears to have more surface area (and therefore more viewable area) than the 15.4' Widescreen.
I then calculated the number of pixels per square inch:
HP with 1680 x 1050 resolution (1,764,000) = 16,636.6 pixels per sq inch
IBM with 1400 x 1050 (1,470,000) = 13,611.11 pixels per sq inch
Do these numbers look accurate?
Does anyone know why there is such a big push toward the widescreen displays given that they offer less actual screen real estate?
Any comments are appreciated!
HP: actual display is 13” by 8.15625” = 106.03125 sq inches
IBM: actual display is 12” by 9” = 108 sq inches
So far, the 15.1" display appears to have more surface area (and therefore more viewable area) than the 15.4' Widescreen.
I then calculated the number of pixels per square inch:
HP with 1680 x 1050 resolution (1,764,000) = 16,636.6 pixels per sq inch
IBM with 1400 x 1050 (1,470,000) = 13,611.11 pixels per sq inch
Do these numbers look accurate?
Does anyone know why there is such a big push toward the widescreen displays given that they offer less actual screen real estate?
Any comments are appreciated!




