Why 1024 x 768 over 1400 x 1050?

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

Al wrote:
> About three years ago I purchased a Sony PCG-300 notebook. It has
> a 1400 x 1050 screen. I have been squinting at the screen ever since
> I bought it, but I do like the tremendous amount of information it
> can present.
>
> I am considering purchasing a new notebook. I thought this time
> I would get a 1024 x 768 screen to eliminate the squinting. This
> morining I thought to myself, "Geez, I wonder if you can fiddle
> with the display resolution?" I found out you can. You can make
> a 1400 x 1050 screen display as a 1400 x 1050 screen or a
> 1024 x 768 screen.
>
> The question is, why would one purchase a 1024 x 768 screen if
> you can get a 1400 x 1050 screen for the same price?

Have a look-see at the newer bright, high contrast LCDs on laptops.
1280x1024 is more of a base now than is 1024x768, but at any resolution
the newer LCDs are much more readable that say a screen from 3-5 years
ago at the same resolution. It still boils down to a matter of personal
preference, but the technology is much better now.

Q

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

Al wrote:
>
> The question is, why would one purchase a 1024 x 768 screen if
> you can get a 1400 x 1050 screen for the same price?

Because running an LCD at other than its native resolution looks like shite!

Regards,

James

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

"Al" <ecarecar@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:11dntrg2v29e5c8@corp.supernews.com...
> About three years ago I purchased a Sony PCG-300 notebook. It has
> a 1400 x 1050 screen. I have been squinting at the screen ever since
> I bought it, but I do like the tremendous amount of information it
> can present.

Squinting..? Then why bother using such a machine...
BTW - have you tried increasing the font size (if you are using Windoze...)


>
> I am considering purchasing a new notebook. I thought this time
> I would get a 1024 x 768 screen to eliminate the squinting. This
> morining I thought to myself, "Geez, I wonder if you can fiddle
> with the display resolution?" I found out you can. You can make
> a 1400 x 1050 screen display as a 1400 x 1050 screen or a
> 1024 x 768 screen.
>
> The question is, why would one purchase a 1024 x 768 screen if
> you can get a 1400 x 1050 screen for the same price?

Because LCDs run best at their native resolution. Buy the laptop which suits you
100% or you'll be unhappy. 1400x1050 too small (even with a big font..?) then go for
a lower resolution. I use both 140x1050 and 1600x1200, both on a 15" screen
(ThinkPad A31, and A31p and T43p respectively) and find myself working on the latter
more and with greater "optical/visual" pleasure (oh yes - I'm older than dirt and
wear progressive bifocals...) When I need to work on my small (10.6") Fujitsu with
1280x768 wide-aspect screen I feel cramped (not because of the screen size but
because I'm so used to displaying more on the screen.)
YMMV.
--
><eM eL><

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

Incidentally, 1400 x 1050 is about 106 dpi on a 15" screen.

Scanners are a bit more standardised at 100 and 300 dpi resolutions.

Thus to view 100 dpi scans on 100 dpi screens,

Display:

Pixels => Diagonal
1024x 768 12.8"
1280x1024 16.4"
1400x1050 17.5"


100 dpi corresponds to an integer value of 254 micrometre pixel pitch.
200 dpi -> 127 um

Gets a bit messy for other values... :-)

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

It's possible to change the size of things while still running the
display panel at it's native resolution.


JHEM wrote:

> Al wrote:
>
>>The question is, why would one purchase a 1024 x 768 screen if
>>you can get a 1400 x 1050 screen for the same price?
>
>
> Because running an LCD at other than its native resolution looks like shite!
>
> Regards,
>
> James
>
>

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

JHEM wrote:
> Al wrote:
>
>>The question is, why would one purchase a 1024 x 768 screen if
>>you can get a 1400 x 1050 screen for the same price?
>
>
> Because running an LCD at other than its native resolution looks like shite!
>

How can you tell?

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

eM eL wrote:
> "Al" <ecarecar@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:11dntrg2v29e5c8@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>About three years ago I purchased a Sony PCG-300 notebook. It has
>>a 1400 x 1050 screen. I have been squinting at the screen ever since
>>I bought it, but I do like the tremendous amount of information it
>>can present.
>
>
> Squinting..? Then why bother using such a machine...
> BTW - have you tried increasing the font size (if you are using Windoze...)
>
>
>
>>I am considering purchasing a new notebook. I thought this time
>>I would get a 1024 x 768 screen to eliminate the squinting. This
>>morining I thought to myself, "Geez, I wonder if you can fiddle
>>with the display resolution?" I found out you can. You can make
>>a 1400 x 1050 screen display as a 1400 x 1050 screen or a
>>1024 x 768 screen.
>>
>>The question is, why would one purchase a 1024 x 768 screen if
>>you can get a 1400 x 1050 screen for the same price?
>
>
> Because LCDs run best at their native resolution. Buy the laptop which suits you
> 100% or you'll be unhappy. 1400x1050 too small (even with a big font..?) then go for
> a lower resolution. I use both 140x1050 and 1600x1200, both on a 15" screen
> (ThinkPad A31, and A31p and T43p respectively) and find myself working on the latter
> more and with greater "optical/visual" pleasure (oh yes - I'm older than dirt and
> wear progressive bifocals...) When I need to work on my small (10.6") Fujitsu with
> 1280x768 wide-aspect screen I feel cramped (not because of the screen size but
> because I'm so used to displaying more on the screen.)
> YMMV.

Well, I'm "older," too. And I just don't think I want bifocals. So, I
think I'll get the 1024 screen, and, maybe, later get a 1600 x 1400
monitor. I'm tired of paying for the fancy notebook screen and
dumping it when the computer technology and computer get a little
old and tired, and then buying another screen.

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

Al wrote:
> JHEM wrote:
>> Al wrote:
>>
>>> The question is, why would one purchase a 1024 x 768 screen if
>>> you can get a 1400 x 1050 screen for the same price?
>>
>>
>> Because running an LCD at other than its native resolution looks
>> like shite!
>
> How can you tell?

Is that a rhetorical question?

You set your LCD display to something other than its native resolution and
attempt to use it for any period of time.

http://news.designtechnica.com/featured_article6_page2....

Regards,

James

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

>You set your LCD display to something other than its native resolution and
>attempt to use it for any period of time.
>
>http://news.designtechnica.com/featured_article6_page2....

Good article!

Thanks!

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

"Kryten" <kryten_droid_obfusticator@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:GyXCe.10855$Ag3.4625@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> Incidentally, 1400 x 1050 is about 106 dpi on a 15" screen.
>
> Scanners are a bit more standardised at 100 and 300 dpi resolutions.
>
> Thus to view 100 dpi scans on 100 dpi screens,
>
> Display:
>
> Pixels => Diagonal
> 1024x 768 12.8"
> 1280x1024 16.4"
> 1400x1050 17.5"
>
>
> 100 dpi corresponds to an integer value of 254 micrometre pixel pitch.
> 200 dpi -> 127 um
>
> Gets a bit messy for other values... :-)

Assuming 100dpi for good viewing is false - it all depends what the OS
decides to show fonts at. This can be changed by the dpi value in settings,
but it isn't completely universal.

There are actually few things that require a high resolution, such as
1400x1050 to be fit in a 15" screen. Even photos look fine on 1024. And if
you're editing, you just adjust the zoom value.

Duncan.