Dell's 9300 XGA+ UltraSharp screen question

Hi all,

I'm looking at this laptop and have it configured at under $1600 and that's with the 2Ghz cpu and 6800!(Only 256mbRAM--upgrade elsewhere) I selected the 17" XGA+ UltraSharp because I read one person elsewhere said this is an excellent screen. Is this screen "excellent" for use with editing photos, movies and reading?
I'm avoiding the UXGA because reading at that resolution would be really hard and my current desktop resolution is 1024X768 on a 19" Flat screen and it's perfect for me. I dont want the glossy finish either because I'll be using the laptop outdoors a lot. I don't wanna see the horseflies buzzing around my head on the screen!

Thanks much----


Huuuh.

 

yes I am saying that. It is not glossy!

DigitalCameraReview.com | BargainPDA.com | TabletPCReviewSpot.com

 

Are you saying the UXGA is not glossy?

Huuuh.

 

Holy Moses! Breathe. hehe. What's the "TrueLife" all about in the WUXGA version?

Thank you-----Please don't bite me.

Huuuh.

 

Dell uses "Crystal Clear" display to denominate the glossy finish you speak of, it's available in the 700m, this is not the same screen you would get with the 9300 so don't worry about horse flies!

DigitalCameraReview.com | BargainPDA.com | TabletPCReviewSpot.com

 

Dell Says true life provides higher contrast than non-glare screens. I wasn't aware of something that's not non-glare and not glossy. In fact, that sounds pretty bad!

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by fsacj

 

Well, I have not idea, but I can tell you probably next week as my 9300 is in testing phase somewhere in Malaysia as others have said.

I got the uxga with the true life as it said it had wider viewing angle and maybe better contrast? Who knows.

I will give a review when it arrives as I'm sure others will that have ordered the same thing.

 

[/quote]

bad as in bad? or bad as in DAM GOOD.


[/quote]

I meant bad as in bad, but I was sarcastic. Sorry, too confusing. Abaxter says it's not glossy, and Dell says it's not non-glare. A "Glary" screen that's not the nice glossy finish sounds bad, almost the oposite of a compromise. I wonder if Dell is just being Dell and giving similar technology two different names.

Giving common technology a unique name is good for business.

Take the popular Dodge Hemi. A lot of owners are proud. However, Hemispherical cylindar heads are not a new design, not unique to Dodge, and were not pioneered by Dodge. In fact, there have been better designs for quite some time now.

Oops, this is a laptop forum.

 

Here's is an article about the 9300. Check out the link.

The notebook's 17-inch widescreen display is sharper thanks to Dell's new Truelife technology. (Not to be confused with its UltraSharp screen, which has the antiglare coating that gives it the non-glossy look.) The new screens will brighter and clearer by ridding the anti-glare coating.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1769571,00.asp

 

But Dell says it is both ultrasharp and truelife. Hmmmm...

 

Wait... They finally have specs up for it. It has lower rated brightness and viewing angle but equal contrast to the 1440x900 variation. Hmmmmmmmmm

 

The PC mag article is not very informative.

The new screens will brighter and clearer by ridding the anti-glare coating.

Will (be) brighter by taking away anti-glare. This doesn't make much sense.

A review of an actual screen would be better and comparison to existing technology.

 

Like Despotes, I'm also concerned about which screen to order my 9300 with. It has nothing to do with $$ and everything to do with the resolution I'd be running and the gloss/reflection-factor.

I can't see myself running 1900x1200 on a 17" screen given that I've found myself comfortable at 1152x864 on both my 21" desktop systems. (Admittedly, I run a little higher res for games, but never beyond 1280x1024).

So, maybe I could be ok with running 1440x900 on the 17" but that seems like the max.

I'm also not a fan of glossy screens, I prefer anti-glare.

Being a tech-head though, the thought of a higher-res, better contrast screen always "calls". Right now I'm thinking of sticking with the 1440x900 XGA+. Given what I described, would this be the better call or am I missing something? Even the sticky display-FAQ in the hardware forum on Notebookreview.com advises not going with a high res if you're not planning on using it, since running at a lower res can look blurry... ?

Thanks

 

I went with the WXGA+ screen. I'm keeping my fingers crossed and hoping the resolution from the LCD screen is comparable to the resolution of CRT's. If so, I'll be very happy. If not, I'll just send it back and...hmmm, I know I don't want 1600X1200 and the 9300 doesn't offer a WSXGA screen, so I'll have to order an Asus Z71V.

SpeedDemon, 1152X864 looks pretty good on my 19". I think I'll keep it there. That resolution should be more comparable to the 17" WXGA+.
Yeah, apparently changing an LCD screens resolution to other than it's native setting leads to a degredation in quality.
I'm curious if the refresh rate is adjustable...? 60Hz drives me nuts!


Huuuh.

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by Despotes

 

The Trulife is glossy. Look at the pics below of the same screen on the XPS2:

http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,2393,l=146492&s=1565&a=146468&po=3,00.asp
http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,2393,l=146492&s=1565&a=146468&po=1,00.asp

The reflections ae pretty bad and easily annoying. If you watch a lot of dim light movies/games, then it's ok, but on ANY other occassion (i.e. 95%+ for me), the reflections will make me want to throw the screen through the window.