WSXGA vs WUXGA?

Can someone help me with the quality difference between a WSXGA and a WUXGA? I'm leaning towards the WSXGA because of my 52-year old eyes. I don't game and I doubt I'll use the notebook for movies. I'm concerned that I'll have trouble reading the text if I were to get the WUXGA. However, I do love to play in Photoshop Elements, would the quality be reduced alot with the SXGA?

Does Vista handle text better than XP? Or when in a browser, does the text size get handled by the browser?

FYI, I'm new to notebooks. I'm looking at is the Gateway NX860XL with Vista Ultimate, 2 GB ram, 80GB 7200 HDD, NVIDA GeForce Go 7900 GS, with the choice of the above screens.

 

I would suggest that you find a store in your area that can show you the difference. There is nothing better then judging it with your own eyes.

Best regards

frenchnew

 

Thanks, I live in a rather rural community. I can get to a Best Buy and a Circuit City. Neither have WSXGA.

 

I got a HP dv9000t with the WSXGA about three months ago and my 60 year old eyes love it. I looked at the WUXGA and everything was just too small. I think WUXGA is best suited for games and HD DVD's. Try to get a look at a WUXGA laptop with Vista.

 

supposedly the text issue was fixed with vista. though if you are concerned that your eyes will give you problems with WUXGA then perhaps WSXGA is right for you. I've heard that many people find that WSXGA is a happy medium for those who don't want small text but want good resolution. Though these reports where from XP users so this may or may not apply to you situation. I don't use photo shop on the count of the fact that I can't afford it, but for the photo editing that I do, I find WSXGA to be adeqaute. Plus I game, watch DVDs and use animation programs like flash and Pivot. So far, I am satisfied with the resolution quality for this.
To repeat what has been said before, the best way to figure out if the screen is right for you is to see it for yourself. Though I can understand your situation. I too have had my fair share of big box stores having limited amounts of different types of screens, most carry WXGA, and your lucky if you can find one that has a WSXGA. Again, I have heard that many people are perfectly happy with WSXGA. In the end it will be you that makes the decision, all I can hope is that you have found some useful advice from what myself and other forum members have posted.

 

As a 21 year old, I would never exchange my WUXGA for WSXGA, and WUXGA seems a perfectly apt size for the 17" screen I have. I have not had any eye fatigue problems and I think that WSXGA would be far too low a resolution for the screen.

 

WUXGA is really hard to read if your screen is <17". Some of the Dells have that WUXGA screen on the 15" models and I can personally vouch that you have to crank up the DPI to read anything.

WUXGA supports 1080p, but I think it's overkill on a notebook. I find 1680x1050 to be a happy medium.

 

you and many others as well.

 

The notebook you are considering is meant for gaming (at least it has a very good graphic card). I think you can get a much cheaper laptop if you want to use photoshop and not play games. This graphic card would really mean overkill.

 

I find my 1440 x 900 screen to have a very fine resolution, and would not want it to be any higher. My slightly myopic 29 year old eyes find the text a little small, but the option to increase the font to 120 dpi is always there. PErsonally I wouldn't want to go a higher resolution.

 

Man can I relate!! I am in just 45 and about 3ish years back I bought a 15.4" laptop with WUXGA and OMG I swear that was the single biggest mistake I ever made in computers. It is impossible to read if you spend any significant amount of time on the system.

And yes everything is reduced in size. If you compensate for that using various driver &/or Windows settings often times applications (especially dialog boxes) will not display correctly.

By using a WSXGA display you are not giving up any "quality" you are simply decreasing the pixel density of the display. Meaning less pixels in each dimension. In effect it makes things bigger if you go with a lower resolution display. Your eyes will thank you and you will be far more productive...and have less "raccoon eye syndrome" from longer work sessions.

In my new system I opted for an WSXGA+ resolution in a 17" laptop. It's been wonderful. I still need reading glasses because well, the old eyeballs are just worn down to the nub after all the years coding ever day. But I find the effective resolution (read pixel density) just the right setting.

If I were to get a 15.4" or lower display I would not get a widescreen (8:5 ratio) display but rather opt for a more standard 4:3 screen ration in a "standard" square-ish display. I have an older Dell Inspiron 5000 system with a 15" display and I can actually use that in SXGA+ mode if I tweak the fonts just a tiny bit...but I still would not want to use it as my primary work system anymore.

When you do go out and look at different systems make sure of the resolutions and also make certain the system is set to display at that resolution. People like to play with settings and sometimes they can get changed. If your area is like where I am none of the stores will have systems above WXGA even in 17" models...which can suck while trying to compare. It took several trips shopping to ferret out higher resolution systems.

BTW, I ended up with an HP NX9420 with the matte finish (they call it WVA) display...best system I ever bought, hands down...and the video card should be plenty for doing a bit of Photoshop...I did add another 1GB of RAM to a total of 1.5gb.


Best of luck hunting!!

 

you will....you will....hehehehehehe.... :GEEK:

heeyyy, yeah, that's right MS held that fix out of XP SP2 and was supposed to put it in Vista...hmmmmm...well, graphics will still likely be smaller...but now I am thinking it might be doeable for WUXGA in a 17" display running Vista...something to go look for now...

 

My old eyes are nearer 60 than 50 and I took a gamble why I got a 15.4" WSXGA+ (1680 x 1050) notebook a couple of months ago. I've set the DPI to 120 and the size of most text is OK and I have no difficulty in using the computer for hours at a time.

A key advantage of the higher resolution display is that, with ClearType enabled, the text is much formed so that small text is easier to read. The downside of the non-standard DPI setting is that the formatting of some applications goes adrift, but never to the extent of being unusable. If Vista has fixed this then that this, for me, will be a strong reason to think of migrating.

John

 

I cant bear anything below 1600 x 1200. More accuracy is better in my opinion. You can always make the test DPI higher to make things more visible, you can increase the text size in web browsers with no worry if you have a decent resolution screen, and you can zoom in a lot in office.

 

hehehehehe...Lil Mayz...after ya hit your 3rd + decade of staring at a computer screen you might change your opinion. Then again you will never have had to use CGA (or LESS) monochrome 60mhz displays under florescent light and LIKED it...the old guys have paid their dues and it has had an effect on eyesight. These are not opinions we are offering here just real world experience as it has affected us. Sometimes a person needs to deal with the reality of what is and not what might be theoretically ideal.

 

I went to Circuit City & Best Buy today. CC had only one 17" notebook. A Toshiba Qosmio. It had XP on it. The poor thing looked like it had been beaten up. BB had three 17", all at WXGA...

 

To FXRRON

I just signed on to this forum and saw that you own a HP dv9000t. I am thinking of purchasing a dv9700t that will be used primarily for portfolio trading and I use my laptop exclusively on my lap as opposed to on a desk or table. Will this thing be too heavy for that? I am choosing a 17 inch only to get a numeric keypad because I do a lot of numeric entry. Any thoughts you or anyone else have on this would be welcomed.

 

Hi,
Sorry for the delay in my response. I use my 17" on my lap quite frequently. It's not heavy, but can get warm, as will any laptop. I love it in the winter
I l-o-v-e having the 10-key pad. I can't tell you what a good decision it was for me to have it. I adore my HP laptop.
Have fun with your new laptop.

 

This is definitely an issue where age has to be considered.

Some of my relatives are in their late 50s and their desktop runs at 800x600 instead of its native 1280x1024 (its a 22 or 24 inch samsung LCD display btw). When I look at the lower resolution, everything has a blocky and blurry look to it. But they don't see it and they hate the native resolution because they can't read anything, even at 120 dpi.

 

Personally I hate to squint and like easily readable text. I'd go for WXGA (1280*800) on anything up to 15.4" and then WSXGA (1440*900) on 17" and above then WSXGA+ (1680*1050) on 22" or larger.

Large res is all well and good if you sit pretty close to the screen but a lot of the time i am 3-4 feet away. Right up close higher res is ok but it really lacks flexibility for me. I tested a 15.4" laptop with 1680*1050 and I couldn't get on with it in day to day usage.

 

My eyes are 28 years old, I'm using WSXGA+ (1680x1050) on my 15.4". I used to use a WUXGA 1900x1200 on a 15.4" laptop before this, interestingly I thought it was ok and this was only 2 years ago max. But now I feel that even my WSXGA+ is on the small side! Maybe the WUXGA killed my vision...

If there was an option for 1440x900 on my current 15.4" laptop, I think I would have done that. But increasing the DPI just a little bit on a WSXGA+ is working ok.

The only thing you can do is see it in person because everyone will tell you a different opinion. Just be careful with the WUXGA because its too small for the majority of users.