Is WUXGA a good idea? Counsel me about going back to CCFL.

I'm currently rocking a Latitude E4200 with an LED-backlit 1280x800 screen. I absolutely love the machine, but I'm considering getting something with some balls-out CPU power and a lot more pixels -- though I wish it didn't have to be at the expense of added physical size.

I was originally looking at the Precision M4400, until I learned some pretty showstopping news: the RGB-LED WUXGA 1920x1200 screen is only available in glossy (terrible), and it somehow consumes more power than the matte 2CCFL WUXGA option (also terrible). I'm not a designer or a display snob. I love LED-backlit laptop TN displays because:

-- they're bright
-- they improve battery life
-- blacks and whites look great

Looking around the market, I don't see any 15.4" or smaller 1920x1200 panels with white-LED backlighting. That pretty much sucks. So it looks like if I want to go through with this, I'm getting either a Latitude E6500 or a Precision M4400 with a matte CCFL 1920x1200 screen depending on Dell Outlet's price/value ratio when I'm buying.

My questions are:

1. Has anyone else begrudgingly gone from an LED-backlit screen to the E6500's/M4400's WUXGA CCFL so you could reap a higher screen resolution? Does the screen come anywhere near what you were used to before?
   
   
2. What kind of total battery life could be reasonably expected from an E6500 (P-series C2D, Nvidia NVS 160M, 9-cell) with the WUXGA CCFL and/or from an M4400 (P-series C2D, Nvidia FX 770M, 9-cell) with the WUXGA CCFL? I'm getting a crazy six+ hours on my Lat E4200 with the 6-cell right now, but that's obviously a pipedream for a machine like one of these. I guess four hours would be alright.
   
   
3. Why do laptop manufacturers, screen manufacturers, and customers love crappy low resolutions on 13- and 14-inch laptops? This kills me! Lenovo makes a 12-inch machine with 1440x900, and several companies are cool with giving you 1920x1200 on a 15.4" screen. Why can I not exchange large piles of United States currency for a 13-inch or 14-inch laptop with a white-LED-backlit 1680x1050 panel? I realize there are plenty of folks that would cry eyestrain, but those display options are obviously not "for" you.

If I could get an E6400 with an LED 1680x1050 panel, I'd do it in a flash. I'm so bummed about this CCFL situation that I'm considering slumming it with 1440x900 on an E6400 regardless, but that's not a huge step up from where I'm at now.

Talk me through this!

 

I actually got rid of my 13" sony because I just got fedup of the 1280x800 screen
I just didn't get enough onto the screen to say to myself, Yes I can carry out my day-2-day functions without the size bugging me

I now have a UXGA M4400 with the 1920x1200 screen and initially, you realise how much better it is. This remains but my eye-sight isn't the best and I refuse to wear glasses so sometimes it's a bit too small - You can knock it down a notch or two without screwing up the visual side though.

so as far as your questions go..

1. I have gone from LED to dual CCFL screen but from a Sony tri-LED screen to a Dell Dual CCFL and I can safely say, apart from not having the glossy screen, I can't tell the difference. The UXGA is MUCH brighter than the Sony - and be aware that Sony boasts about how bright their screens are!
I really thought I would notice the difference but I don't at all.

2. I will get back to you but I think it is in the region or 2-3 hours on the ambient sensor and on the standard battery - don't quote me on this as I am still plugged in at home and can't check until I get home

3. 1920x1200 is VERY usable on the 15.4". I was worried but it's fine. If you knock up the fontsize a bit, then you've got best of both worlds.
I don't regret one bit going for this and on a developing/SQL world, this is perfect

However, 1680x1050 would have been fine too :- )

 

kalibar, I love your argument. I would have to say that I am a display snob.

I went from a Sony 13" 1600 x 900 to the M4400 RGB LED 1920 x 1200 because I love the real estate. If I could get a 13" with the same resolution - you best believe that I would be willing to shell out some serious dough if it were an option.

 

There is a difference between RGBLED and WLED, but if they arent side by side or you've gotten used to using the former, it's pretty hard to tell. Now that I've been using my m4400 for 6months all other laptop screens seem a little washed out. The glossiness is also less than on consumer models so it's not as big of a deal breaker as I originally thought. I think the best analogy is when you buy a big screen tv. After awhile of using it, it doesnt seem that "big" anymore, but when you go over to a friend's house their's seems a tad small...it's kinda like that haha. So if you dont have a need for the color, dont switch =P. However, blacks do look much blacker and there is much less of the blue tint that WLED and CCFLs suffer from(but again, not really noticable unless you compare them directly).

As for why it drains for power than the CCFL's is because their are 3 independant light sources instead of one like on WLEDs. This will cause it to suck more power.

To address your actual questions:

1) Never owned a WLED version of this model so I cannot comment beyond the generic observations I made above.

2)I get about 4hrs with 70-100% brightness and wifi on with my 9cell. But with a lower powered gpu and the CCFLs instead of the REDLED I would expect in the 5-6hrs range with the 9cell(depending on settings)

3)I completely agree that it's horrible how manufacturers are using low res screens in all their laptops nowadays. However, I believe this is done in a effort to curb costs. The problem is that most consumers, dont care about high resolution screens. The main things they care about are screen size(because it's much easier to see/understand than dpi) and "ghz"(because bigger "always" means better...). I hope this trend doesnt continue much longer though...As I'm never going to buy a 15" notebook with anything less than WSXGA+

I really wanted to go with a WSXGA+ WLED(to save on battery life) but sadly dell didnt offer it. I think this resolution is absolutely perfect for a 15" notebook. I think the only really gain you'll get from upgrading to the CCFL, other than the resolution boast, is outdoor readability. My RGBLED is exremely bright and I have no trouble seeing outdoors(other than the reflections caused by the stupid glossy screen). Since the CCFL is matte, you shouldnt have the same problem, not to mention it's WAY brighter than mine.

 

Thanks for the responses, guys. aj84, are you saying that the dual-CCFL screen on your M4400 is actually brighter than the LED screen you came from?

Interesting to hear that you dumped the VAIO Z, RootPhisher. I nearly laid out the cash for that machine but decided against it when I found a stacked E4200 in Dell Outlet for $850. A VAIO Z with a backlit keyboard would be nearly perfect, since I think I could probably deal at 1600x900 in exchange for such a small computer. It's too bad you have to get it with the optical DVD drive: I'd rather have a smaller laptop and plug in a USB optical drive the one time a year I need to use one.

Tangentially related, the VAIO Z's screen is (to my eyes) the best-looking display I've ever seen on a laptop. It's glossy but it somehow doesn't seem to pick up a bunch of glare thanks to the coating Sony uses on it -- looking at it in a Best Buy next to all the hyper-glossy trash laptops they sell shows a stark contrast (seriously, who gets a monster 15.4" laptop just to stare at a CCFL 1280x800 screen?!).

How do you rate the M4400's RGB-LED WUXGA display against the screen on the VAIO Z? I've seen a bunch of complaints about the M4400 display in this subforum.

 

You think the M4400's CCFL panel is brighter than the RGB-LED panel? That seems counter-intuitive...

 

The CCFL display outputs 350nits while my RGBLED only does 300nits. The ATG model dell has outputs around 600nits if memory serves, that one is also a dual CCFL display(matte of couse).

Source: http://www.dell.com/content/topics/...s?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd&~lt=popup&~tab=5#52nd

 

Cool, thanks for the link -- that's very interesting information. It sounds like the CCFL is definitely what I'd be looking for vs. the RGB-LED, though I'd still prefer a hypothetical WLED panel if it were ever built

My other hangup between the E6500 and the M4400 are the processor choices. The E6500 gives you a bunch of nice P-series options including the P9600 (2.66 GHz, 6MB cache) while it looks like the best P-series you can get on the M4400 is a P8700. The P8700 will obviously kill the ULV SU9400 I'm using right now (lol), but I was hoping for the best.

Decisions!

 

Well, this would depend on how comfortable you are with internal componets, but you can always swap out the processor for a faster one. And as long as you keep your old one, it wont void your warrenty (just remember to put the old one back inside before you return it). This route will most likely be cheaper than buying the P9600 from Dell. And since you've been living on a ULV chip anything is an "upgrade" and that would allow you to pick up the laptop now and wait for cpu prices to drop further before you upgrade, which will save you some additional money since you dont "need" the power now. Best of both worlds IMO

I'm personally holding out for the quad cores to lower in price before I upgrade my system muahahaha

 

I can only comment on the comparison of using the SZ for 2 years non-stop and find the CCFL is blindlingly bright in comparison.
My SZ had the triple LED or whatever Sony called it but I had never in the 2 years turned the brightness down unless I was outside and on battery where I needed to save power.

The dell I am having to turn it down to just the second notch and/or use the ambient lighting sensor to maintain it.

Maybe it is deceptive that because the screen is 2" larger, it seems brighter but that still does not explain why I have to turn it down :- )

A note on the glossy screen - I thought I would really miss it! It looks expensive! BUT, I don't miss it one bit especially having been able to use it today outside with the sun glaring at it

Obviously when off, the Sony looked better but when on, The M4400 wins hands-down especially in the light.

As I said, I can only comment on my own exp. and not on stats and figures which is why i rarely go with techincal reviews but more so the individual user reviews