New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How does the 16.1" scale?

post #1 of 3
10/27/03 at 11:14pm
Thread Starter 
Simply that.

If I want to play a game at say...1024x768 or 1280x1024 hows the screen handle it? Im aware that lcds are best at thier native resolutions, otherwise you can get some nasty interpolation; but some handle it better than others. So to those of you with the 16.1" screen...what are your opinions on its quality at these resolutions?
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 3
10/28/03 at 2:50pm
The one design flaw of LCD's. Sometimes the gaming side of me would prefer a 1024 X 768 native display. I'm really not that interested in much higher for gaming. You can usually put all the bells and whistles on that come with your video card at that resolution without the undesirable performance hit. 1024 X 768 with all the effects on looks great on the A51m2.

The downside is that having the 1024 native display would basically screw you in the apps or in multimedia dept that can take advantage of a 1600 X 1200 display.

The Area51m2 does a nice job when working at a lower resolution. My eyes are good still so I have no problems reading anything while surfing the net or using Macromedia Director. It's small dont get me wrong but I enjoy the crisp fonts and the native high res is simply stunning.

Equally, my wife prefers the setting more on the 1280 X 1024 and while not completely as crisp as the 1600 display it stilled looked and read great.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 3
10/28/03 at 4:19pm
While I do not own an AlienWare machine, I do have a 16.1" UXGA (Sager 8887-V) and I understand your question.

I play Battlefield 1942 with all the retail mods + desert combat; quite extensively (mainly, the only game I play). I have run it at 800x600 (the equal-division factor) as well as 1024x768 and 1280x1024.

Obviously, 1600x1200 (native) is the "best" resolution, however, 1280x1024 and even 1024x768 are quite playable. For high-action games like BF1942 (and Unreal, etc) one can drop a little eye-candy quality and if things are moving quickly (as they usually are), the pixellation is not too bad.

I mean, if you are very picky, then there is a slight chance (not a good chance, but slight) that you will not like anything below 1600x1200 (looks-wise). I am quite comfortable playing BF1942 at 1280x1024; also the 4x AA and other hardware features of the ATI9000 (M9) that I have really helps. If the newer M10's (9600's) do even better, then there ya go!

-myrkat
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home