1920x1200 vs 1600x900?

Hi. My current laptop (Sager NP5796) has a screen that's 1920x1200 and 17". Seems like most 17" laptops these days are available up to 1600x900. Does anyone have any feeling one what the real-world difference is? I do graphic design, so it is of some importance -- just not sure if it's worth paying double for.

Thanks!

 

The 1920x1200 has more pixels then the 1600x900, making the image more clear, and the text and such smaller, there really isnt any differance unless your looking at the two side by side.

 

If your doing graphic design WUXGA will definitely be worth it. Going from 1920x1200 to 1600x900 will make things feel really cramped.

Some models to consider are:

Dell Precision M6500
Alienware M17x
HP Elitebook 8740w

Other people can add on to this list. Also, what's your budget?

 

higher resolutions need a bit more processing power and more video ram.

 

Hmm...who should I trust? Squirrels or dogs?

Budget, well...not enough. Maybe could go to $1500. If 1920x1200 seems necessary, I'll probably just have to wait, maybe reinstall xp fresh on here. Wish I could get W7 to install on this thing.

Anyway, thanks for the help. Maybe I'll to go over to Best Buy or something just to see what 1600x900 looks like.

 

Real world difference is that the higher resolution monitors will allow you to be much more productive if your eyes aren't straining at looking at the smaller text (for the identical sized, but different resolution monitors).

The best compromise if the 'productivity' is of top concern and not the 'mobile' part is to simply get a secondary monitor and use both your notebook's 1600x900 screen and an external monitor at 1920x1200 or larger.

Not only will this cost less than the 'upgrade' price on the notebook for the higher res screen, but you'll have almost 3 times (1.6 vs. 0.6 actually) the resolution increase compared to just upgrading to a single 1920x1200 monitor solution.

 

i'd get as many pixels as u can... if ur getting a new 17 inch , 1920X1080 will be more common than 1920X1200... so have a look which one you prefer but i would get WUXGA.. comes from an engineering student lol

 

Only for 3d though, and even then...

 

I've gone up to a 2560x1440 27 inch iMac and I could never go back to 1920x1080/1920x1200 so for me definitely the more pixels the better. Though something like a 13 inch Sony Vaio Z with the 1920x1080 screen upgrade might be a bit of overkill. On a 17 inch screen though 1920x1200 with a 1920x1080 minimum for me. The main difference really is space. On the iMac, I can fit two web browsers or a web browser and whatever I'm working on side by side. Its like having the productivity of dual monitors on a single screen. 1920x1200 is indispensable if you're doing anything like Photoshop/Video Editing/ or developing Flash Games like I do. For any sort of productivity the work the extra pixels are incredibly valuable.

 

Yes. Once you go to a higher resolution you would want to stick to it if possible. Especially since if you have a higher resolution you can always go back to the lower resolution or use all lower resolutions possible if necessary. Also, more pixels (squares) means more detail & more desktop space to work with. Text only gets smaller because the 'squares' have to be smaller in order to fit more pixels in the same amount of physical screen space.

 

Dogs. You'll never find a story like Hachiko about a faithful squirrel.

Oh. And higher res the better. The only reason to get lower res is if the price is dramatically different (several hundred dollars difference) or if you are gaming, and your laptop's GPU will have a hard time pushing high resolutions.

 

I would not trade long term health of my eye with productivity(no matter how much).

For me, get a 30" secondary monitor if I need those extra pixels.

 

Chimpanzee -- would you explain that comment a bit further? Are you saying high res is bad for your eyes for some reason?

 

I had a Dell D830 @ work which came at 1650x1024 (15"). Even at that resolution, I find it to be too small (the text) and my eyes were very tired after a full 8 hours work. Yes, it was very impressive at first sight of how crisp the text were but long hour usage is a totally different thing.

Now is using a 23" 1920x1080 secondary monitor(and still have to scale up the font by 10%).

I don't have scientific proof of anything, only know that I my eyes hurt using that kind of resolution on such a small screen.

High resolution is good for photo/video but bad for text.

 

His claim is pretty unfounded, "Display size: 25.44" × 15.9" (64.62cm × 40.39cm) = 100.63 PPI, 0.2524mm dot pitch, 10126 PPI²" thats a 30 inch 2560x1600's PPI 133.19. A 17 inch 1920x1200 is "Display size: 14.42" × 9.01" (36.62cm × 22.89cm) = 133.19 PPI, 0.1907mm dot pitch, 17738 PPI²" " So yeah its slightly more pixels per inch but you're going to be sitting closer to your laptop then your 30 inch desktop screen. The difference in terms of long term eye damage is virtually zero.

 

What claim ? I said I don't have scientific proof of anything as I am not interested to do this kind of 'calculation', I said I feel much better at the end of the day.

 

Obviously not, if you are the type of person to try and give people technical advice with no evidence and based on your personal preference

If you are going to say that kind of thing then you should also list at least your age and the screens brightness. This isn't really a forum to give totally random entirely personal opinions.

You are making a claim because although you started it with "I would" you have stated that factually somehow it is impossible to preserve your eye health and increase productivity in this way.
There is no need to sacrifice one of these things for the other.

Have you ever considered that you just dont exercise your eyes enough like everyone else?

 

Wow. Ok. Let's back up for a second, and stop bashing each other. Nobody here is an optometrist that has studied the effect of long-term screen viewing on ocular health, so nobody here is qualified to say what is better/worse for your eye health.

I think it's fair to say that higher resolutions, by default, result in smaller text. This may cause eyestrain for some, as they squint to look at the smaller text.

However, the solution to this is to adjust either the text size (via Windows font scaling - which in Windows 7, is excellent), or the brightness / contrast of the screen.

So yes, higher resolutions *may* be harder on the eyes for some - but it is easily worked around, as long as you know what to look for.

 

Options for 1920x1080:
HP DV8t 18.4"
HP envy 17"
ACER - Aspire 8942G 18.4"
SONY - Vaio VPC-F13M 16.4"

Another option is to buy external monitors eg SAMSUNG 23 SM2343NW with 2048x1152 res...

 

Is Acer a decent brand these days?

 

There are several factors to consider.

first is visual accuity. If you haave 20/20 or better yet 20/10 vision you are usually good with 1920x1200. 20/10 or 20/5 is that much better if you are looking at 17" 1920x1200. as we get older though reading tends to get only harder so the small dot pitch may require larger and larger scaling of the text to be comfortable.

Second is contrast and the screens ability to display the contrast. With two low a contrast it becomes hard to distinguish the individual lines definition comapred to the background.

Third is color bleeding. If the pixels bleed out to coresponding pixels this can give a blured effect.

fourth is color accuracy, sometimes there is only a slight change that needs to be distinguishable. sometimes an inacurate screen is also that war as the color gamut is limited as well.

fifth could be refresh rate. While LCD's are better than CRT's for eye strain at 60Hz faster is usually better. I know I cna tell the difference and eyestrain is reduced significantly at 75Hz or better.

sixth backlighting. I personally prefer LED as whites are usually whiter etc but this alot of times also reduces viewing angles. The problem here is LCDs are usually a more directional light source.

There are several other factors too. Most of all with some trial and error this becomes a subjective rule that changes from person to person. You have to find your comfort zone. With present software more pixels means more screen realestate and usually more productivity. So the best bet is to get as high a reolution as you are comfortable with. Having a lower res screen you can deal with 8+ hoiurs a day will always be more productive than a machine you can only tollerate being on one hour durring your work day if that................