1440 x 900 xga+ or 1920 x 1200 uxga

At a screen size of only 17" my buddy who sells tv's at bestbuy said that with a screen that small the higher resolution is unnoticeable and spending 200 dollars for it is pointless. How much better is the image quality of the uxga?

 

The 1920 x 1200 is 1080p capable, big diffrence compared to 900p. 1080p gives you a much better image..

 

The resolution is unnoticeable for TV's that size because people are ten feet away. It makes a huge difference in screen real estate on a 17-incher (small for TV's, quite large for notebooks) since you're only a few feet away. You'll get 77.8% more screen real estate, and you'll easily be able to view things like two Word documents side-to-side. The image quality is based more on the quality of the screen and the backlighting, but the difference is very noticeable, and in my opinion, it's worth it.

 

Primarily for context (not to be too picky), the 1440x900 screen is technically only "810p" vs. 1080p because it doesn't even have the full 1600 horizontal pixels for 900p.

 

Ok I will pay the 200 for the higher resolution then.

 

I wear specs, 1920X1200 would have been too painful for my eyes.

 

Print is smaller with the WUXGA but the difference between the two screens is night and day.

As some of you here know, My M17 came with the lower res screen and when it arrived I was so disappointed.

I promptly replaced it with the WUXGA screen from my M9750. The high res screen is sweet.

 

there is a huge difference trust me

 

If you are getting a Blu ray drive make sure you get the better screen.

 

for the m17 I went with the higher res screen because of the screens size and the fact the machine is mostly for gaming not work text stuff