8890 UXGA Impressions - Page 2

You have to take everything that anyone says here at face value. No sense getting mad at each other over whatever personal opinion you may have had with the 1 lcd you used as you basis for review. Until some posts that they have 100 of each type lcd and they looked at each of them side by side, whatever opinion you have about them is exactly that, your opinion.

Using one lcd to blanket coat every lcd of that particular type as better or worse than a different type is absurd. Everyone appreciates whatever feedback is offered here, but to pretend you are the authority on what lcd is best using only 1 sample of each is off base.

Unfortunately, you are not doing that.

I'm not sure what ego has to do with the issue, if I did not like the SXGA screen I would have dumped it in a heartbeat & replaced it.

Actually, there are people interested in this discussion for the simple reason that they are trying to make a decision about which screen to order.

The discussion is very relevant. But there are multiple factors to consider when comparing the SXGA to the UXGA:

- resolution - with its resultant increase in real estate when higher, but possibly at the expense of legibility

- quality - ghosting issues for gamers - and color issues for photographers - etc.

I have followed most of the threads - and I believe that sagermadness is the first person to have all machines available at the same time. The issue of multiple copies of the same screen doesn't make much sense. Yes there may be slight variations from sample to sample, but not major differences. Assuming that everyone has their screen configured properly, I think that the only possibility is that serious variances may be due to the fact that there may be more LCDs in play here than we realize.

So far, from what I am reading, it sounds like the UXGA in conjunction with the 9600 Pro may be the way to go, i.e. increased resolution - but drop it down to SXGA when you want to game or when your eyes get tired!

SagerMadness - How would you compare the 8890 SXGA font legibility to the UXGA 8890 when set to 1280x1024? Is the UXGA much worse?

dropping down from native resolution sucks in games. if you're lucky, aa might hide some of it.

without knowing the response times between the two, you can' t really pick the optimal panel for gaming(which is one of the reasons it is so hard to get the 'official' specs, imho).

I just want my sager! lol.


...and the first person to get one of the new colorized ones better post some pics!

If you look at the beginning of this thread, you will find SagerMadness's notes about gaming with the UXGA set to SXGA. He says that it is so good that if you didn't know any better, you would think that it was in native mode!!

...and that is his subjective opinion, one which doesn't apply to me.


:-)

I want the least ghosting panel, plain and simple. All of the color problems and dim areas are important too, but the one thing that really bites is BLURRY games. If you have a UXGA screen, do you get more ghosting if you are not running in the native rez?

Jeff

I would have to see that with my own eyes to believe it. A UXGA screen should look ok at 800X600 but I am skeptical that it is awesome at SXGA settings.

Ok, im going to have to find someone locally that will let me look at theirs. Im just totally confused. I like the better rez of my 8887 at 1600, but I hate the ghosting so much that I would go to a lower res SXGA screen without hesitation if the ghosting was noticable less. If the ghosting is improved in the new UXGA (if it is new), then I take back what I said about not buying one if I was paid to do it.

Jeff

I really appreciate what sagermadness has done, and for me he has made my decision very clear now...
and since he compared it (8890 with UXGA) with sony GRT UXGA (which one of my friends have) and he says that its as good regarding ghosting, and that the 8890's can display the whole 16M colours, then that is good for me...

anything else that has "you won't notice it" indicates that an error is there and not much people would care about it being there... well, I'm not that type, and I know I would notice it and it would make my life miserable...

thanks to all for their opinions and help...

PS. when did reviewers check 100s of samples of things?
the best I know is that they would test the sample they get (only one) and base the review on it.. heck, it would take to infinity to test 100s of the samething to get a review..

????

Does this mean that the SXGA+ resolution of 1400x1050 looked bad?

Very possibly! I did some research on fonts - anti-aliasing (AA), MS ClearType - using subpixel anti-aliasing, etc. The subject gets somewhat complex due to the potential interaction of various system components. What is the OS doing re anti-aliasing, the graphics chip, what default fonts are being used and how do all of these components behave when the screen is not running at its native resolution?

However, studying all of this did remind me of one simple fact! All of this anti-aliasing logic is attempting to correct for the low resolution inherent in our current display devices. Duh!!! Obviously, higher resolution is better (all other factors being equal). The higher the DPI of a display, the less need for AA. Also, any higher resolution display has the inherent potential to be better than a lower resolution display - it is just a question of performing the best AA and also a question of which system component performs the work, i.e. the CPU, graphics chip, etc. We always assume that an LCD will only be good at its native resolution and this has always seemed to be true. I guess that I thought that it was true because there would be no interpolation (AA) when at native res, but this is not true. There is AA at work, it's probably just better optimized. If configured correctly (or used optimally) it's probable that a higher res screen should always be better than a lower res screen regardless of the resolution that it is currently running at. Possible exceptions might be when the two resolutions in question are very close to each other - such as a native UXGA (1600x1200) trying to be a SXGA+ (1400x1050?).

Sorry for the long post. The bottom line is that SagerMadness and my research have convinced me to go with the UXGA!!

Okay my two cents.....

I have a 8890 SXGA.
Why? Because it was the first 8890 available for sale! If it had been an UXGA then I'd own that one.
But as a gamer isnt ghosting, response time and colors and such important to me? Sure it is, but since the 8890 (in my opinion; sorry but the ATI 9000 didnt cut it in my book) is the FIRST laptop on the market with serious enough hardware in it to be considered a gaming notebook...it was that hardware I was more concerned about than the screen.
Did the multitude of posts about "blotchiness" worry me as I waited for my 8890 to arrive? Of course.
Was there blotchiness in the "bliss" background and in the default IE tool bar upon arrival? Sure was.
HOWEVER! I considered this to be a problem inherent within this background and toolbar color theme which affects ALL LCD screens.
Why? Because as it was said above.... and I have seen it in every other LCD screen I have ever looked at.
As soon as I changed to a new desktop theme and background...problem was gone. I have run every screen test on this baby I own and not a single problem has come about since then.
So.....
Ghosting? Aint seeing it....
Colors? Beautiful...
Gaming? Great and only getting better...
UXGA? SXGA? Get whatever floats your boat and be happy!
And if you arent smart enough to toss out that horrid "bliss" background as soon as you turn the computer on for the first time...then you arent smart enough to own ANY Sager (UXGA or SXGA) anyway!