Screen Resolution Question

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"Jitz" <jitz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fak_c.289917$eM2.111717@attbi_s51...
> I've been doing some investigation into laptops as I'd like to buy a
> desktop
> replacement primarily for gaming. I understand that there are a number
> of
> machines that offer 17" screens, in resolutions like 1680 X 1060 or
> 1440 X
> 900, for example. How do these resolutions work for gaming? I
> typically play
> my games on a 19" desktop monitor in resolutions of 1024 X 768, or
> 1280 X
> 960. I don't typically go up to 1600 X 1200 as the images get too
> small for
> my liking. How do these resolutions work on one of these laptops? Is
> the
> image skewed, or is the whole screen not used?
>
> Another question.....I see many manufacturers offer tv tuners. How do
> thses
> work? If I'm on a wireless notework, connected to my router/cable
> modem/cable, can I get all my cable channels?
>
> Lastly, does anyone have any thoughts on Sager or Prostar? The
> machines
> appear to be identical to those offered by Hypersonic and others
> (OEM?) but
> a bit cheaper.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
>
>

Laptop LCDs work differently than CRTs. Each LCD is designed for only
one maximum resolution no matter the size. Lesser resolutions are
displayed in a proportionate reduction in the displayed size. For
example, a 1280x1024 set to VGA will display 640x512 in one half of the
screen to maintain the native maximum resolution of the LCD. There will
be black borders around the displayed image. There are video adapters
that will stretch the VGA image to fill the screen, but due to the fixed
number of pixels on a screen and the inability of the adapter to
interpolate the stretched image (one VGA pixel will overlap two full
screen pixels), the image will seem to be blocky or out of focus -
unsuitable for most purposes, although some people do operate this way.

Even though there is a large screen, there is no a priori guarantee that
the video adapter will be able support an acceptable frame rate using
full screen mode. You need to check this thoroughly if this is
important to you. In any event, you will need at least 64MB on board
VRAM, 128MB might be desireable and a good ATI or NVidia adapter.

Lastly, you might be tempted with a new Prescott-based 3+GHz CPU
notebook for the most gaming horsepower. I think this is generally a
bad idea. The desktop P4 in notebooks is a cooling disaster, IMO;
mobile P4s have been better, but these CPUs run extremely hot in gaming
and coupled with a video chip running at its capability, cooling is at
the ragged edge of reliability. The new Pentium-M series is a much
better choice.

Serious gamers rarely use notebooks since there is no hardware upgrade
path as game requirements change, and no options to improve marginal
gaming performance except reduced screen size and reduced video
functionality. Even the vendors of gaming laptops will not warrant the
equipment for what you might consider acceptable gameplay. At the price
of a cutting-edge laptop, you can probably purchase two upgradeable
desktop systems that will outperform any laptop in any function, gaming
included.

Q

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:413A6C2A.1090601@neo.rr.com...
> Quaoar:
>
> Re: "Laptop LCDs work differently than CRTs. Each LCD is designed for
> only one maximum resolution no matter the size."
>
> Take out the workd "maximum" and that part is correct. A CRT has NO
> fixed resolution, none, at all, period [yes, it has physical phosphors
> and a "dot pitch", but that's designed to be far less any resolution
> that will be displayed, and dot pitch isn't the same thing as
> resolution.] On the other hand, an LCD has ONE physical resolution,
period.
>
> Re: "Lesser resolutions are displayed in a proportionate reduction in
> the displayed size. For example, a 1280x1024 set to VGA will display
> 640x512 in one half of the screen to maintain the native maximum
> resolution of the LCD. There will be black borders around the displayed
> image."
>
> That part is not necessarily the case. What you describe is one
> possibility, but as often as not, alternatively, the graphics hardware
> will instead try to "scale" (enlarge) the smaller image to "fit" the
> screen. It will do this, and fill the screen, but the quality of the
> resulting larger display will be significantly and adversely effected.
> Some systems will give you a choice of the smaller image and black
> border or the "stretched" image that fills the screen. In most cases,
> the resolution being displayed is not any integral sub-multiple of the
> physical LCD panel resolution.
>
> Re: "Even though there is a large screen, there is no a priori guarantee
> that the video adapter will be able support an acceptable frame rate
> using full screen mode. You need to check this thoroughly if this is
> important to you. In any event, you will need at least 64MB on board
> VRAM, 128MB might be desireable and a good ATI or NVidia adapter."
>
> Frame rate doesn't apply to LCD monitors at all, they are not "scanned"
> like a CRT. The comments about the amount of onboard memory also make
> no sense.
>
Barry,

Thanks for the comments. (Thank you as well, Q). From what I've seen in this
group, your opinion is highly respected. Since I'm planning on gaming, I do
plan to get a 128MB ATI 9700 (possibly the 256 MB 9800, but doubtful), 3.0
GHZ + processor, 1 GB RAM, etc., if any of these make a difference to the
screen resolution question. If I plan to game in 1024 X 768 up to a maximum
of 1280 X 1024, am I better off with a 15.1" - 15.4" screen?

By the way, what is the big benefit to the 17" screens? Watching DVD's?

Jeff

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Generally, I'd recommend a 17" screen with 1280x1024 resolution. For
almost all purposes, it's a better display. However, if the objective
is gaming, there are, in the simple brute force quantitative sense, more
pixels to slog around than with a 1024x768 screen (the issue being
resolution, not size in inches). And, to that extent, you may get fewer
fps from the larger resolution screen. That's your call. Also, for
gaming, response time is important. Some LCDs are up around 50-60ms.
That's acceptable for desktop applications, but for gaming you will be
happier with 25ms (or even lower, say 15, but it's not commonly found).

Other things being equal, a larger screen is much better, you just "see
more". I'd voluntarily never go back to a 1024x768 screen, or a 15"
screen (the two usually go together, but not always). I'm not into
gaming, but my son is and he wants 19" or 21".

Your proposed system looks good. Normally I don't recommend more than
512 megs (not that there's anything wrong with it, but for most
applications it's not necessary). But, for gaming, some of the new
games really do need a gig (according to my son), if for nothing else
other than storage of display textures.


Jitz wrote:
> "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:413A6C2A.1090601@neo.rr.com...
>
>>Quaoar:
>>
>>Re: "Laptop LCDs work differently than CRTs. Each LCD is designed for
>>only one maximum resolution no matter the size."
>>
>>Take out the workd "maximum" and that part is correct. A CRT has NO
>>fixed resolution, none, at all, period [yes, it has physical phosphors
>>and a "dot pitch", but that's designed to be far less any resolution
>>that will be displayed, and dot pitch isn't the same thing as
>>resolution.] On the other hand, an LCD has ONE physical resolution,
>
> period.
>
>>Re: "Lesser resolutions are displayed in a proportionate reduction in
>>the displayed size. For example, a 1280x1024 set to VGA will display
>>640x512 in one half of the screen to maintain the native maximum
>>resolution of the LCD. There will be black borders around the displayed
>>image."
>>
>>That part is not necessarily the case. What you describe is one
>>possibility, but as often as not, alternatively, the graphics hardware
>>will instead try to "scale" (enlarge) the smaller image to "fit" the
>>screen. It will do this, and fill the screen, but the quality of the
>>resulting larger display will be significantly and adversely effected.
>>Some systems will give you a choice of the smaller image and black
>>border or the "stretched" image that fills the screen. In most cases,
>>the resolution being displayed is not any integral sub-multiple of the
>>physical LCD panel resolution.
>>
>>Re: "Even though there is a large screen, there is no a priori guarantee
>>that the video adapter will be able support an acceptable frame rate
>>using full screen mode. You need to check this thoroughly if this is
>>important to you. In any event, you will need at least 64MB on board
>>VRAM, 128MB might be desireable and a good ATI or NVidia adapter."
>>
>>Frame rate doesn't apply to LCD monitors at all, they are not "scanned"
>>like a CRT. The comments about the amount of onboard memory also make
>>no sense.
>>
>
> Barry,
>
> Thanks for the comments. (Thank you as well, Q). From what I've seen in this
> group, your opinion is highly respected. Since I'm planning on gaming, I do
> plan to get a 128MB ATI 9700 (possibly the 256 MB 9800, but doubtful), 3.0
> GHZ + processor, 1 GB RAM, etc., if any of these make a difference to the
> screen resolution question. If I plan to game in 1024 X 768 up to a maximum
> of 1280 X 1024, am I better off with a 15.1" - 15.4" screen?
>
> By the way, what is the big benefit to the 17" screens? Watching DVD's?
>
> Jeff
>
>

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:413A6C2A.1090601@neo.rr.com...
> Quaoar:
>
> Re: "Laptop LCDs work differently than CRTs. Each LCD is designed for
> only one maximum resolution no matter the size."
>
> Take out the workd "maximum" and that part is correct. A CRT has NO
> fixed resolution, none, at all, period [yes, it has physical phosphors
> and a "dot pitch", but that's designed to be far less any resolution
> that will be displayed, and dot pitch isn't the same thing as
> resolution.] On the other hand, an LCD has ONE physical resolution,
> period.
>
> Re: "Lesser resolutions are displayed in a proportionate reduction in
> the displayed size. For example, a 1280x1024 set to VGA will display
> 640x512 in one half of the screen to maintain the native maximum
> resolution of the LCD. There will be black borders around the
> displayed image."
>
> That part is not necessarily the case. What you describe is one
> possibility, but as often as not, alternatively, the graphics hardware
> will instead try to "scale" (enlarge) the smaller image to "fit" the
> screen. It will do this, and fill the screen, but the quality of the
> resulting larger display will be significantly and adversely effected.
> Some systems will give you a choice of the smaller image and black
> border or the "stretched" image that fills the screen. In most cases,
> the resolution being displayed is not any integral sub-multiple of the
> physical LCD panel resolution.
>
> Re: "Even though there is a large screen, there is no a priori
> guarantee that the video adapter will be able support an acceptable
> frame rate using full screen mode. You need to check this thoroughly
> if this is important to you. In any event, you will need at least
> 64MB on board VRAM, 128MB might be desireable and a good ATI or NVidia
> adapter."
>
> Frame rate doesn't apply to LCD monitors at all, they are not
> "scanned" like a CRT. The comments about the amount of onboard memory
> also make no sense.
>


Frame rate is a function of the video adapter capability, as you should
well know. A poor video adapter will not provide the framing rate, it
has nothing to do with the LCD, with the possible exception of the LCD
having such a low response time that ghosting is a result at high frame
rates.

You also edited out the entire paragraph about screen expansion. What's
up this that?

Q

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 14:19:55 GMT, "Jitz" <jitz@comcast.net> wrote:

>Lastly, does anyone have any thoughts on Sager or Prostar? The machines
>appear to be identical to those offered by Hypersonic and others (OEM?) but
>a bit cheaper.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jeff
>

Others have answered the resolution questions so I'll just stick to
this one. Sagers are excellent notebooks. I highly reccomend them!
Notebookforums.com has a Sager board and that's the best place to
learn about them.
Sagers are great for gamers, and cost the right price.

Currently using a Sager np5670 for over a year and it is still a fast
machine.