pics of 1200x800 vs other resolutions? on 15.4 inch

anybody have pics comparing them on a 15.4 inch?

 

I happen to have three 15.4" notebooks sitting on my desk right now. 1280x800, 1650x1080, and 1920x1200.

When I get home from work I'll post some pictures for you.

 

ok thank you just wondering... i had 1280x 800 on my returned laptop, and i sort of didn't like how it looks compared to my 1024 x 768 desptop since the icons are bigger than windows xp...

can i resize vista icons or will i have to use a higher res. (if so, which one?)

thanks greg

 

it might be easier if someone with the highest res 1520 or some other 15.4" notebook took a pic, resized to 1440x900, took a pic, resized to 1200x800, took a pic, etc. for diff resolutions.

 

You can choose to use classical icons in vista instead of the oversized ones that vista uses by default.

 

Example: 15.4" Screens and Various Resolutions and their differences
I tried to stay as consistent as possible for all the pictures, i.e. same distance from them, highest brightness settings, same camera resolution, etc, etc. I also tried to get all the screens to take up as much of the camera picture as possible.



Anyway...
Each and every series of pictures is arranged from left to right: WXGA, WSXGA+, WUXGA (or rather 1280x800, 1680x1050, and 1920x1200).

NBR Front Page


NBR Forum Page


Desktop Icons (Yes, Vista and XP but I made sure all icons were at classic size with same DPI settings.)


Window (This window was known to be the same number of pixels on all three laptops)

 

thank you very much! so, to me, i don't see a huge difference.. are there any? when would they be noticeable?

 

^^Nice pics. After looking at those, I think WXGA looks the best. The others look really small to me.

 

The biggest difference is in the size of the text and windows themselves, as well as all the GUI elements.

Higher resolution - More pixel space for stuff, but the smaller that stuff is.

 

which do you believe would most accurately look like 1024 x 768

 

You have confirmed to me how much I'm going to like my 1680x1050. Thank you.

 

That really would depend on the size of your monitor.

Edit: For instance, since I'm used to 1280x1024 resolution on my 17" desktop screen, I went with a 1440x900 on my 1720, but if I went with a 1520, I believe that 1200x800 would be closer to what I'm used to.

 

wuxga looks terrible for browsing or gaming, but if you like to multitask (for example, a word window side-by-side with another word or acrobat window), it's the way to go. Very nice job on the pics, BTW!

 

I believe the WUXGA also has a higher contrast ratio for the dells, 500:1 vs 300:1 for wsxga+

 

Hmm... 15.4" at 1200x800 seems optimal. I'd prefer 1440x900 on a 15.4", but the Compal IFL90 doesn't offer that option.

 

OK, if you really want to know EXACTLY how the icons/text will look as compared to your screen (without actually seeing it), you will have to do a little math to figure out the dots per inch.

Example: I have a 17" monitor and it's set at 1280x1024. Based on the height and width measurments of the viewable area, I figured it to be about 98 dpi.

I then called Dell and asked for the EXACT measurements of the viewable area of the 15.4" screen which happens to be 8.18"H x 13.05"W . You can do it with the diagonal 15.4" measurement as well using the Pythagorean theorem and the 16:10 width/height ratio of the screen.

Once you know the height and width you can figure the dpi for each of the different resolutions (I'll only calculate the horizontal here, the vertical should be within 1 or 2 dpi):

1280x800: 1280 pixels/13.05" = 98 pixels per inch

1440x900: 1440 pixels/13.05" = 110 pixels per inch

1650x1050: 1650 pixels/13.05" = 126 pixels per inch

So based on the above, you can easily see objects on the 1440x900 will appear about 12% smaller than the 1280x800 and the 1650x1050 will display things about 27% smaller.

Hope this helps.