Is Studio XPS 1366x768 too low?

Please suggest is Studio XPS 1640's default resolution of 1366x768 too low to run applications. I am not looking from the movies aspect, but to run day to day applications or comparing two documents side by side.

Thanks.

 

It's fine, i have laptops lower than that... i'm also getting this laptop at 1366x768, if you can though go for the 1080p it may not be the best but it's good enough

 

It depends on how good your eyes are. If you want to compare two documents side to side, the 1366px horizontal resolution probably wouldn't be ideal. I have a WSXGA+ screen (1680px horizontal), and it is just wide enough to display two pages of a Word document side by side at about 90% zoom. I can also view two PDF files side by side at near 100% zoom. Don't know how I managed at all with XGA for all those years. Of course, if your vision isn't that great to begin with, you should stick with lower resolution - your eyes will thank you.

 

From my experience, i don't think its too low. On my old Gateway P-7811FX, the 1920 X 1200 on 17" looked sweet for games/movies, but actual work it was a pain and too small
I think probably the best res for a 16/17 would be 1680 X 1050, although i found my old dv9500t's 1440 X 900 res was good res too.

So i think the default 1366 X 768 should be fine really.

 

Yes, 1366x768 is too low, in my opinion. It is acceptable for a 13" screen, but not a 16".

The vertical space is lousy - I had laptops 10+ years ago with the same vertical resolution. And, the horizontal res is nothing to shout about either.

 

"Yes, 1366x768 is too low, in my opinion. It is acceptable for a 13" screen, but not a 16". - v c"

I'm going to second that. One more thing - 1366x768 is one of those oddball resolutions. I have never seen a 1366x768 display with correct dimensions.

I believe that the problem is the ratio. For instance, 1440 divided by 900 = 1.6 (optimal ratio). 1366 divided by 768 = 1.778.... (not optimal ratio).

The standards for widescreen are a ratio of 1.6. It is for good reason. You will view true dimensions and not fat looking, horizontally stretched images.

 

The RGBLED is 1920x1080. 1920 divided by 1080 is 1.77 also.

 

1366x768 and 1920x1080 have 16:9 ratio, the same ratio that widescreen televisions have.

"You will view true dimensions and not fat looking, horizontally stretched images."

????? If you're viewing a 4:3 video stretched to the screen size, then it would look "fat" and be stretched horizontally as well with a 16:10 screen.

On the other hand, if you view a 16:9 video (a common widescreen ratio for films/TV shows released on DVD/Blu-Ray) on a 16:10 screen, it's either you will get black bars on top and bottom of the video, or a distorted "tall looking" vertically stretched image.

 

Yeah, I don't doubt what you are saying KrionX, but I was really refering only to PC displays. The resolutions such as 1280x800 and 1440x900 for instance, were chosen because their aspect ratio shows proper scaling of images for PC widescreen LCD's, and that number happens to be 1.6.

You are absolutely right. 16:9 aspect is a ratio of 1.77.... But that resolution just doesn't seem to work well with widescreen computer LCD's. I tried a monitor with 1366x768. I returned it the next day. The native resolution looked horrible. I immediately could see the inaccurate aspect ratio. I'll stick with 1.6.

 

I still don't get it how screens with 16:9 ratio won't show "proper scaling of images" for you.

Are you saying that if you have a 200x200 image, it won't display like a perfect square on a 1366x768 or 1920x1080 screen?

 

Ive been using a 1366x768 screen for over 1.5 years; it took about 1 min to get used to since all TVs are that aspect. And, i use a 4/3 monitor at work.. with problems switching back and forth.

But, the 1366x768 i have now is on an 11.1 inch LCD... and, (for me) i wouldnt see the point of moving to a 16inch screen with exactly the same resolution. I would move to a 16 inch screen to improve multi-tasking.. which only come with increasing the native resolution + larger screen.

 

side note, for those who don't like the 16:9 aspect, just be warned that it seems more and more monitors are being produced to that aspect ratio.
So pickup your 16:10 while you can.

 

Yes KrionX, something like that. For whatever reason, 16:10 looks perfect on a PC widescreen LCD and 16:9 doesn't. I really wish I knew more as to why this occurs. I can just tell the difference as soon as I view a PC at 1366x768.

Absolutely dreadful news. We took a step backward with glossy displays (I hate reflections) and now 16:10 apsect monitors are disappearing. I had better hang on to my 19" 1440x900 HannSpree. It looks awesome even while playing movies. And my M1530 looks perfect with the LG 'LPDF00' 1440x900 panel. I hope it lasts the machine's lifetime.

 

I just got a WLED 720p 1366x768 option. Im not so sure about the resolution but the 16:9 aspect is very good if you want to watch movies.
But games kind of suck with it. they dont usually have anative 16:9 res so seem streched

iv got first hand rexperiance as iv had a 8930g 16:9 and fw11e 16:9

I really would have liked a 1600x900.

the resolution does seem low buts it should be ok.
usually downloads/ blurays/ tv shows are in 576p (correct me if im wrong) then 720p and then 1080p.

and if you dont have blu rays, most hd content is only 720p online.

so it should be ok for movies and games wont be able to run at high res with good settings as the GPU is not good enough.

 

There must be something wrong with the 16:9 monitor you had tried then.

Screens/monitors should have square pixels (i.e., the aspect ratio of the physical screen and the screen resolution must be the same), so whatever their aspect ratio or native resolution may be, a square or perfect circle image should display a square and a circle respectively on it.

 

I saw a Sony VAIO FW today with the 1600x900 ECO display (non-LED). That looks like the best resolution for a 16" notebook. I'm definitely waiting now for Dell to offer the 1600x900 WLED option. I'm sure they will, it's only a matter of time.