How would 1440x900 look on a 1680x1050 screen?

I just got back from BestBuy where I hoped to see both native 1440x900 and 1680x1050 resolution on 15 inch notebooks. Unfortunately, they only had 15 inches notebook with native 1280x800.

I am planning to buy a M1530 and am thinking about the 1680x1050 screen resolution, but I'm afraid that it might be too small. I like working on my desktop with dual monitors and windows side by side. My thought behind the 1680x1050 screen is that it would allow me to do the same, have windows side by side.

If I buy the 1680x1050 screen and determine that it's just too small to read, could I set the resolution to 1440x900 without it downgrading the image quality? Or, would I handle this through DPI? How would DPI affect menus is various programs?

Any insight/advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

It would be fuzzy. I personally dont find it small, but i have good eyes. So scaling it down makes it fuzzy.

 

Will it be fuzzy if I left it at 1680x1050 but set the DPI to, say, 125%.

 

I have 1680x1050 on my 1520. Its Crystal clear at native res. But I find icons, text and webpages too small. I have perfect 20/20 vision and sometimes I have to strain at that resolution. I keet it at 1440x900, and it does seem SLIGHTLY fuzzy for the first few minute, but I really don't notice any fuzziness now. Perhaps I'm just got used to it. It almost feels like I wasted the extra money for the 1680x1050, because I never use it a native!
For my m1530 I ordered the 1440x900 without hesitation.

 

Sometimes the 1680x1050 is small I would go with the 1440x900. The 1440x900 is brighter anyway 250 nits compared to the 1680x1050's 200 nits.

 

20/20 isn't perfect vision.

 

This is great info! THANKS! Brighter is better, especially since I won't be able to hold out for an LED.

 

I think the LED will come out February first this isn't a promise but thats what I've heard (alot) but if you still can't wait. Brighter IS Better!!!!!

 

I was in a local shop yesterday looking at a similar comparison. I saw a 1440 and a 1680 screen both on 15". At first the 1680 looked like it was about THE SAME as the 1440 - in terms of the text size and screen real estate. Until I figured that the fonts were probably set higher. Vista has an option for default 96 dpi fonts, which the 1440 was on. The 1680 was set to 120 dip fonts, and when set back to 96 dpi it then looked smaller (and in my opinion) nicer. So you could always scale the fonts up if you got 1680 and didn't like it. Be aware however, that this can sometimes cause issues with applications and menus etc, if they don't scale correctly. Eg, you won't be able to read the text properly.

 

Thanks for the input. The DIP setting changed the font size, but this didn't have any effect on icons, etc., did it?

 

To be honest I can't remember, but I don't think so. The setting specificly refers to the font dpi, and nothing else (ie, not the whole lcd dpi). I remember my first impression was that there was no more screen space (which I found odd), but I never opened any windows etc to check. But since most windows involve text, you'd get less on screen (and still be able to read it) anyways, even if there are more pixels.

 

It does change the icons a little and make things a little more bigger but the trade off to me is viewing webpages and applications. This the DPI can't fix. All your programs will show things smaller than what I would consider normal. However, the 1680x1050 screen I had was crystal clear. The sharpest screen I've seen on a 1520. I think the 1440x900 is the best though. You get best of both IMO