13" asus with 1600x900 resolution

Do asus offer an ultraportable with 13" screen and a decent 1600x900 res?

Or are there likely to be any coming out soon?

I don't undertand why laptop manufacturers make hot 13" laptops (eg. the unreleased U36SD), but cripple them with low res (eg. 1366x768)

It's pretty clear that there is a huge market for higher res 13" laptops, it is just such a logical move for manufacturers, it just seems only sony have fully realised it.

 

a) don't think so, you've gotta jump ship to a computer that costs 2-3x more. You want to know why it's that much more expensive to go with an extremely high DPI screen laptop? Hint: It's the extremely high DPI.

b) since when does the lack of a hd+ option on a 13 inch screen make a laptop crippled?

Compare some numbers here and here.

 

not sure if i'm reading you wrong but you've seemed to have taken my opinions/request personally.

not all people are like yourself and just use their laptops for gaming. some of us use them for productive purposes that require a simillar experience to a full sized laptop, or 24" monitor.

At 13" screen size, obviously there is a compromise with resolution and ease of reading, but text can always be enlarged if that is a concern.
And i find 1600x900 a good compromise. the sony z screens that are full HD, well yeah maybe your reaction would make sense if that was the resolution i was after... but i'm not.

 

You don't understand? 1366x768 is perfectly fine for 11.6-13" laptops. Once you go up to 14 and 15 then 1600x900 or 900p would make more sense because of the bigger screen for side by side viewings of documents or coding on excel etc.

It's funny some are even requesting 1080p on 13"-14" laptops. Not everyone wants to squint or view documents side by side you know.


Look at how ridiculously small 1600x900 on a 13" laptop

http://forum.notebookreview.com/3897486-post3097.html

 

Actually, if Sony is the only one realizing it (who specializes in catering to niche market), then perhaps the market you speak of is not that large after all? I'm sure there is a market for it, but I'm not sure if everyone is willing to pay extra $50~$100 for a slightly higher resolution screen.

 

Well I wasn't talking about 11.6" laptops, i'm talking about 13" laptops, and when you say "fine", well no that's not true. Fine for most, yes probably.

that arguement doesn't make sense, you'll still get side by side ability with 1600x900 13". Yes it will be smaller, but that is a compromise many are happy with.

well yes you can get full HD in laptops those sizes, so there is clearly a demand for it. Yes obviously not everyone wants to squint to view documents, if it's a problem for them, i'm not saying that 1366x768 shouldn't be an option. I'm just saying that there are MANY people who want a 13" screen with 1600x900 resolution. The fact that you can get full HD in this screen size should give you some sort of indication that 1600x900 isn't as extreme as you think.

Of course it's hard to judge based on a photo, but I don't think that looks too small at all. In fact the example of yahoo.com search is a perfect example of the limitations of the low res 1366x768. Half of the screen realestate is taken up by the top banner on the website. I find web browsing a very unsatisfying experience on this low res. It's like browsing webpages on my phone, no thanks.

 

Yeah possibly it is not large, but from my observations of discussions online (this one seemingly contradicting that), many people want a higher res in their 13" screens. The 13" screen has become that sweetspot in laptop size for portability and functionality, and a high res completes that for many people. And i'm not saying everyone should pay more for the higher res screen, give people a choice so you don't immedietely lose a significant volume of sales before you've even released your laptop.

 

Here's the problem. You and some other people want a higher resolution screen, but unfortunately you're not the majority. So you'd want the manufacturer to start a whole new different sub-model just for you guys to have a higher resolution screen, which requires negotiating a brand new mask for the LCD for a small volume product (since only Sony and Apple make 13" laptop with 1600x900 resolution).

Correction: Apple does not sell 1600 x 900 13" laptop

So the question becomes, should the manufacturer charge the users $50~$100 more for the added cost for a different sub-model? Would you buy a U36SD that costs $1069?

Like I said, I don't doubt the possibility of some people wanting a higher screen, but I'm pretty sure it is still the minority (NBR is a site mostly for notebook enthusiasts, not for Joe/Jane Sixpacks). I also agree that 1366 x 768 is a sweet spot for 13~14", because it provides the maximum amount of eye comfort without sacrificing too much view area. If you absolutely need that extra visual real estate, both Sony and Apple would offer what you need for substantially higher cost. But of course, you get what you pay for.

Also lastly, 1600 x 900 is not considered FHD. FHD would be 1920 x 1080, which is absolutely impractical on 13"~14" ultraportables. I'd also like to see your claim that "you can get full HD in laptops those sizes".

 

I was one of those who thought lower res was fine - I had a 1280x800 14" screen on my old laptop. My new Sony has a 1600x900 13" screen which my friend called "overkill" - it's actually really nice. I do set my dpi to about 110% to make text a bit more readable since the tab labels on Chrome are MINISCULE with the default dpi setting.

Overall, it's really nice having some extra resolution. I couldn't comfortably 2 windows side by side with my old laptop, but now I can, and that's a lot more advantageous than most would think.

 

I think he means HD+, which is generally 1600x900 ...

But going to that sort of resolution on a 13 inch screen doesn't provide any benefit EXCEPT growing your e-peen, UNLESS you're sitting 2 inches away from the screen.

It's like comparing the difference between 720p and 1080p at a distance of 12 feet. You can't ... physically unable to ... tell the difference.

So at a distance of 4 feet, the difference between 1366x766 and 1600x900 is so small, that it provides no real benefit for any sort of productivity-style-work, unless you've got glasses that magnify your vision. Having owned some pretty high-res sub-compact laptops *and* having great vision (last measured at 20/15 - I can see clearly at 20ft what the median sees at 15ft), my personal experience is supported by all of the other personal experiences of all of the other people doing these sorts of measurements.

I'm fully converted to the idea of having the idea of more pixels on a screen. But I'd rather not pay for unusable pixels. See, you've increased your DPI on your 1600x900 screen to 110%... Which gives you a usable resolution of ABOUT 1440 x 810 ... surprisingly close to what apple offers. Going any higher just means increasing the DPI so it is usable. And like I said, that's *fine* if you'd like to pay for those extra, unused pixels that don't give you any tangible benefit - if you're the sort of person that needs to have bigger numbers for the sake of having bigger numbers, then you'd better satisfy that desire.

Me, I'd rather drop that $150 extra into something useful.

 

That's a pretty easy one...

 

To make it clear for you, you either go for sony S or sony Z. There isnt other options. Screen swaps are also out of question

 

The Portege 840 is supposed to have a 1600x900 option, but I've yet to see one show up for sale anywhere.

 

I think you can only get that HD+ for the R840 directly through Toshiba...

 

I've considered those, unfortunately my requirements sit in the middle of those two laptops.
The SA has a very average quality screen, and i need it for photo and video editing. another reason why screen res is important to me. The Z has suitable screen, however I'm not prepared to pay over a grand for 512mb of internal hard drive (which i need as a min). And yes I will have an external drive also, though portability is crucial for me so the external is only for backup, i'm not having more than one external.

So i was hoping asus might have something in the woodworks as I am a fan of some of their stuff. I'm still waiting for confirmation of the LG P330's screen, though it is apparently IPS, so not likely to be the high res i want due to cost. though if it is, that'd be amazing.

 

I wouldnt get my hopes up with that lg too... Have you considerd getting the last year Z? if go through connics you can select higher storage options, or just go with a base SSD and caddy the thing, the screen on the past and the new z is the same

 

Also a 1600 x 900 fan- the extra lines matter in programming for me

SA- Had a look but not keen on
Z2 - crap and overpriced (imo external gpu idea is a fail)

That leaves the winner of Lenovo Thinkpad T420, 14" is not much different to 13.3 so would suggest taking a look at it.

 

or a 14" elitebook p or w series. 15" gives you a 10 bit IPS option but expensive

 

The colour gamut was great on one of the two FHD g51 units I picked up, but I've heard bad things about the latest g-series 15 inch screens.

Take a look at the lenovo options if you need a high res, high quality 13 inch FHD notebook. They're overpriced if you configure it yourself, but if you get the right one on sale, with a promo code of some sort (lenovo does crazy low priced deals every now and then) and drop the higher res screen in yourself, you can have a really nice little programming package for ~$1500 (might even have some cuda cores if you pick the right deal). Great for CLI work, where you don't actually have to "see" the details, just read the text.

 

FHD 13'' lenovo? where?

 

You have to go aftermarket for the screen.

 

what model and what screen? the x220 is 12.5 the x1 is 13.3 I dont know any displays that are 13.3 that are fhd, if you do show me please, I bet that there are a lot of people on the thinkpad forums that want the upgrade

 

I stand corrected .

Why would Sony put a FHD screen on a 13"? Wouldn't that requires you to sit very close to the screen, or have 20/20 eye sight to use one?

 

Yes I am making an informed choice. In fact the only reason I joined up here was to find this laptop I am looking for. A "bad" choice? Stop trying to reinforce your own personal bias.
As to HD (1920x1080) vs HD+(1600x900), i'm unsure why you are bringing attention to your previous post, if you note the title of this thread you'll see I am after a 1600x900 screen. But regardless of that, "virtually no difference"? perhaps when viewing images res-sized to your screen it wouldn't make a difference, but in reality it would make a significant difference. Could I handle working on full HD 13" laptop? No, too much straining or readjusting text sizing, dpi etc for different applications. The 1600x900 on the other hand, a perfect compromise IMO.

 

20/20 eyesit is normal vision. so if you require normal vision to use the screen, I don't see that as a problem. If you have poor eyesite, probably a good idea to get glasses!
But yes you may find yourself sitting closer to the screen with full HD on a 13" screen, but if it was for something like reading text, you could just "ctrl +" in your browser etc. I've not seen what it looks like in person, so unsure of how impracticle it would be. And unsure of how genuine the benefits are. Last years sony Z had a full HD option also, so there are definitely these screens out there, as I am sure reviews on their "ease of use".

 

Many posts have been edited/deleted. Insults and flaming are not welcome here at NBR: debate and discussion is fine, but leave the personal attacks out. If you have nothing helpful to contribute, simply refrain from pressing "Submit Reply." Take this as the last friendly warning before formal warnings/infractions are given--thank you.

Back on topic:
Yep, at the moment, the only 1600x900 and above panels are available on the high-end Sony Vaio Z and SA models, as far as I know. I wish Lenovo had a 13" HD+ (or even FHD) Thinkpad, or perhaps an HD+ 12.5" Thinkpad. Frankly, my vision's not all that great, but I have no trouble making use of the extra pixels at native DPI settings: when I used my friend's Sony Vaio Z with the 1600x900 screen, the resolution felt very comfortable.

To me, HD 1366x768 resolution is good on my 11.6" X120e (although I'd welcome higher!), and a bit off-putting starting with 12" laptops.

 

Well in real life, an average eye sight would be 20/12 to 20/16. 20/20 is the maximum visual acuity human eye can obtain. So if the screen requires you to have 20/20 vision to see, there's something wrong with the screen resolution.

Secondly, although it depends on your application, it is most likely that users will use the computer to read materials for majority part of their time. If they need to use Ctrl + to increase the size of the font in order not to strain their eyes, the designer must question themselves, "was it the right choice to stick a FHD screen into a 13"?".

I still maintain that 1366 x 768 is a sweet spot for 13~14", and so far everyone but Sony agrees. However if you believe that you can stand 1600 x 900, or even a FHD screen for a screen that small, be my guest. Like I said, only Sony offers this kind of solution, which is clearly an indication of a niche market, not a mass one.

 

HP does it on their envy line ... or, they did. I can't seem to find them for sale anymore.

As for the vision issue ... [citation needed].

 

Not correct. 20/20 is actually considered the lower limit, definitely not the max. From wiki, "maximum acuity of the human eye without visual aids (such as binoculars) is generally thought to be around 20/10"
So the average of 20/12 and 20/16 is actually better than 20/20 vision.
So infact when someone says they have 20/20 vision, they are only saying they have eyesite still within the "normal" accepted level. It is definitely not perfect.
Poorer vision is numbers like 20/40, 20/80 etc. Anyway this is all for distance vision, so probably not very relavent for comparing ability to view computer screens.
Visual acuity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

As has been said there are others that offer higher res, including 13" mac air which is 1440x900 (which incl the 11", there were 1 million sold in Q4 2010). I would put my money on it that within 6 months the majority of notebooks in 13" will have higher res options also.

Reason being is that 13" notebooks in the past have been somewhere between your full powered 15" notebook, and your 10-11" netbook. As a result, there were not a lot of people doing "serious" work on their 13" notebooks, and hence there was not a strong demand for increased resolution. But now that you can get full powered 13" ultraportables, capable of doing a lot more than in the past, and so the screen resolution is becoming more important as it has become the weakpoint.

But yes 1366x768 may remain the "sweet spot" for the general user, but for the more demanding users, i believe the market size of resolutions such as 1600x900 will grow.

 

[citation please]

 

Phrases like "lot of people" do not need citations as any number of people could be considered "a lot"

But yes I made a bold probably incorrect statement, but I was more just simplifying my point. To give you a sort of extreme example of what i was talking about, think about an old crappy 13" laptop, that is only good for browsing webpages and writting in word etc, so very basic tasks. You can probably get by with a low resolution, as your tasks are not very demanding in that respect (yes i'm sure you could find exceptions, but as I said I am just simplifying this to illustrate reason for this trend). Now consider the fastest 13" out there, with the best graphics card that lets you generate 3D cad models, and edit videos at a professional level. Your computer can technically perform the required tasks, but the screen resolution signficantly reduces available feedback to the user, and therefore slows down the users input to the process, resulting in decreased productivity. Therefore prooving that computer performance, and screen resolution are related. They may not be explicitly linked, however they have a very strong correlation. The limit to computer hardware performance is no-where near reached, however the limit for screen resolution in realistic terms has already been reached, as going past full HD on a 13" then draws on limitations of our eyes.

In other words, you want the maximum screen resolution that is comfortable/acceptable in order to have maximum productivity/performance. For you, that might be 1366x768 on a 13". For me it is 1600x900. For others, it may be 1920x1080.

 

about time!
First Look: ASUS' 13in UX31 Ultrabook - News - PC & Tech Authority
seems like manufacturers are getting a clue

 

That is very true *and* you get business grade ...

+2