Another argument why 1440x900 is best

Well I think 1440x900 is optimum for gaming and safety for your eyes. I notice I'm going blind when I game to close to the monitor because I have to squint trying to find enemies like in Call of Duty 4 multiplayer, because with higher resolutions it gets more fine details and everything gets smaller. And that's why I think most new games are coming out with xbox 360 controller support and the Toshiba x305 marketing video demos advocate using a xbox controller so you don't stare up close at the lcd to prevent your eyes going bad, so you can put the note book a safe distance away from you while you game. Infact when you lower the resolution even more the characters get even bigger so you can sit far away and see your target, this is what I do now it also gives me higher framerates and is easier on my eyes. I have to wear glasses now and I don't doubt it's because of staring at the computer monitor to close.

Edit: Studies also show that in order not to trigger epileptic seizures you need to stay a safe distance away from the monitor and with resolution settings higher than 1440x900 it be very difficult to keep your distance because in some games the characters and details would be to small to spot (again my favorite game Call of Duty 4 multiplayer). And I am suffering all the effects, I have to wear glasses and my right eye lid twitches because I'm hardcore gamer like that.

 

The resolution by itself is not that important as a screen size in comfortable gaming. For me the best 17' res is either 1440x900 or 1680x1050. Anything less or above its a no no for my eyes. On the 30' screen though 2560x1600 doesn't make my eyes pop put due to the sheer size of this thing. So not only the res is important but also the screen size for comfortable gaming.

 

Umm... Well its highly subjective matter. I for one now NEED 1680*1050 on my 15" laptop. WXGA is hideous. When I game, the first thing I jack up is the resolution. In many games its important to be able to see as much as u can (I would say especially shooters).

Stuffing less on the screen just to sit further away seems incredibly counter-intuitive to me but hey, whatever suits you. When you sit further away, things become smaller to your perspective don't they? Consider an external monitor.

And that epileptic seizure thing, isn't that just for epileptics? Most people aren't (and those who are know how to deal with it thank you very much) so that point is kinda moot.

If you really want to save your eyes, take breaks between your computer usage and stare at something green in the distance.

 

i love my 17" 1440x900 its not to small or to big its just right

 

Agreed. It is indeed subjective. You can argue all you want about it but the outcome will be the same.

 

Yup, it's always a combo of screen size + resolution. 1680x1050 on my 22" monitor is fabulous

 

I just love my 15" 1440x900!

 

i truly agree that 15" 1440x900 is the best. It is not too big so that everything is small, but not too small to make the screen seem really big.

 

I'd never ever consider purchasing a 15" laptop with a resolution lower than 1680*1050.

I game about 2.5' away from a 32" 1080p TV. My eyes are fine. I haven't had any seizures. Plus studies have shown that sitting close to the TV can't harm your eyes.

 

I actually wanted to get 1440x900 for my 17" notebook (see specs below) but since they don't have anything lower than 1680x1050 I went with 1680x1050 instead. I use it for games mostly so I don't need an ultra high resolution to multitask... Most of the games runs well on high settings on 1680x1050 with more 30+ average fps but there's also a few new games that can only run well at high settings at 1440x900 instead of 1680x1050...

It's been more than a year since I got my notebook and even now I still wish they have the 1440x900 just because I like to game on high settings at native resolution with 30+ fps. I just like how things look more sharp if you know what I mean. But I'm happy I went with 1680x1050 rather than 1920x1200...

Never really like gaming on a low resolution and put AA on. Kills performance and things don't look as good as they would be on native resolution without AA imo.

 

i ve got 1280X800 but i play 800X600..

for competitive gaming ..lower resolution is better as u can see the head of target bigger..

 

About the epileptic seizures, I have a cousin that's epileptic and I thought the same thing that it would only apply to his sort of epilepsy. I never knew that the warning on video games even on console video games refer to unvoluntary twitching like your eyelids and such and my right eye is constantly doing it now. As far as it being subjective, well if you have a 100 inch screen then you can watch from very far away and higher res wouldn't be a safety issue.

Though the point I wanted to make with this post is that everyone bashes Toshibas 17 inch x305 gaming notebook for it's 1440x900 native res but I'm pretty sure Toshiba has thought out the design very well from a hardcore gaming perspective and did things for a reason. And that res just makes sense for performance and safety and the size of the screen.

I don't think you'll see laptops getting any bigger than 17 inch and selling like pancakes cause that just goes against the purpose of mobility. 17 in notebooks are already pushing it with it's size and weight but people probably prefer to have their entertainment on a big screen and again 1440x900 just makes sense on this size for gaming and safety.

 

It's a logical argument but as already mentioned it's very subjective. I'm perfectly happy with my current 1680 widescreen native resolution and wouldn't swap it for anything lower. I know I can't play the latest games at native resolution but I like the increased desktop room and older games play nicely at native resolution. My eyes are probably wrecked enough as it is so eyestrain from tiny words etc. isn't going to affect me much.

 

And how much does one of those 30 foot screens run you back?

 

1440x900 all the way. If i ever get a 17 incher thats what am gonna get. I don't see the point by getting something higher considering that most Desktop LCD screen up 22 inches support only 1650x1050 or whatever the numbers r. You also get bette performance with 1440 and u can run future games on max res instead of buying a new gaming machine each year to run native res. Even 8800 GTX 1920 cant handle WOW at max details... so those screens r not for gamers that wanna run native setiings, but hey if u like blurry a screen running non-native go ahead .

 

Once you go WUXGA+ you dont go back.
No seriously, the extra screen space is awesome. And the text is fiine. I can read it.

EDIT: *** Satyrion, the 8800M GTX can definately max out WOW at WUXGA. My (so called by you, non gaming card) can play COD5 at WUXGA+ on High with stable 30fps.

 

17" at 1920x1200

nothing like space to have stuff up on my desktop

when gaming its the same res. I have good eyes though so does not hurt me

 

It does give you more space by making things smaller but in the long run it's not healthy, you need to stay closer to the monitor to read and that'll destroy your eyes. It already did mine.

 

i never said 8800 was not a gaming card, when did i say that? I got a 8800 GTX desktop and i cant max out WOW at that res without getting sloppy FPS in the big cities. Sorry u loose. Next time please try it before u open ur mouth and get ur facts right.

 

Satyrion is right about something here, there are some certain places in WoW (Like Shattarah for example) can make the best Computers struggle if they dont have enough processing power, ive seen servers with 200+ players in shattarah gathering inside the scryer's place. and thats a big challenge for a computer honestly

 

Actually, i meant to say 9700M GT after "my". I remebr you saying the 9700M GT was not a gaming card.

And how do i, so called, 'loose'? You said "8800M GTX cannot handle WOW on WUXGA, max details." not "8800M GTX cannot handle WOW on WUXGA, max details in some areas where there are two hundred people at once". Your statement was implying the 8800M GTX cannot max out WOW out all. Also, how would you know the 8800M cant max it out, even in crowded cities? Do you have any personal experiance or are you just basing that off the answers from the "Can my notebook run it" thread.

Sure, WXGA+ might be ideal for you, but consider the fact that some people dont just game. Sometimes they need the extra space for Photoshop or something. Btw, a game at WXGA+ max details will look worse than WUXGA medium to high details.

I win, you "loose".

 

I second that, if you have a bigger screen then the pixels are going to be bigger. ^_^

 

u loose again, first u said that i said that 8800 was not a gaming card which i never did. Than u blame it on the 9700 GT. What does the 9700 Gt got to do with this anyway? and yes 9700 GT is not a gaming card. 8800 GTX and 8800m GTX cant handle the game at maximum details. All this is from personal experience with my own desktop 8800 GTX and my friend 8800m GTX. The game get slow downs very many places not only at over crowded places, but also many places in Outland where there r not much players. Esepecially if u go ontop of a mountain and look around with maxed details. Than u get sloppy FPS on the 8800 GTX and 8800m GTX.

 

I'll have you know the 9700m GT is a decent gaming card. I play at native 1680*1050 res just with lowered settings.

(yes I know its 32 shaders, 128 bit, and etc etc etc...)

 

No, its not a gaming card its a multi tasking card which for me means that it average on everything.

 

witness the covering up and silencing of the truth in the making.

 

Will you lay off the 9700M GT? At least its better than the **** poor X3100.
What do you mean when you say: the 9700 is not a gaming card, its a multi tasking card, which means its average at everything? That is the dumbest thing ive ever heard.
Remember, where not talking about your $200 desktop's Radeon 9800, were talking about the 8800M GTX. I cant trust you after you posted that diablo 3 release date thing as your own. Also, who would list an ancient desktop in their sig instead of the one with 8800 GTX?

If you paid attention to what i posted, i said i forgot to write 9700M GT after "my" in my original post. I meant to say my 9700M GT played COD5 very well at native res.

And your friends laptop and desktop must have the crappiest drivers ever, the 8800M GTX can easily max out WoW. I know from my friends np5793!

@jacob808, what?

 

Can't say I've seen a native resolution of 1440x900; however I have seen 1920x1200 and it's fantastic!

 

Have you even considered genetics regarding your needing to wear glasses?

 

A 8800GTX can max out WoW for sure, BUT NOT ON HEAVY POPLULATED CITIES!

also, Satyrion has a desktop, and its considered that if you are gonna have some serious gaming (Desktops) then the entry level is a 8800gt, and i think Satyrion is comparing Mobile cards VS desktop cards,

At Best, the best single Mobile card is and equal to a 8800gt, and thats Entry level for desktops as mentioned above.

 

satyrion is saying it cant even run it maxed on places without many people.

 

somebody lets out a little too much stress on these anonymous forums

My signature is old, i still got the same laptop but i got a 8800 768mb GTX E6600 desktop. Bought it very very cheap about 1 or 2 months ago. Not the best but quite okay. it does however struggle with WOW maxed at the places i already stated above and so does my friends 8800m GTX.

 

Ah, whatever. LOL, your new GPU has more ram than your last desktop had!
ON TOPIC: I think WSXGA+ is the best res, perfect balance. Not too small, not too large

 

blah blah blah yak yak yak.

Satyrion gain some weight and sit further away from the monitor or you'll be wearing thicker glasses.

qaz333 I don't know if you notice that pic of yours but you come off as queer sucking your thumb. Maybe you'll notice it better on a 1440x900 res monitor.

 

..... Thats L from Deathnote.
You assume people always have their avvys as thereselves?

And the title of this thread should be "Another argument on why 1440x900 is best in my opinion, or for me."

And also, i dont even know an expensive laptop that has WXGA+. MAybe you like it cause its the most you can afford. Splash the cash for a better res screen, youll be amazed

 

This thread is going nowhere, and there's too many arguments. Closed.