Envy 17?

It really doesn't matter tho as that was not my original point which I pulled up for you to RE READ. Which of course you ignored..

It simply says--no not 1080p 1920 by 1200 and I said check apple's website yourself. Getting all huffy and puffy about the difference between 1280p and 1200. Is ABSOLUTE trollig..

Especially if as you said, even ACER advertised one of their own laptops incorrectly and a COMPUTER REVIEWER messed up a article calling something the "first 1280p" with the that resolution and an aspect ratio of x:y etc...they actaully made quite a big deal about it.

True trolling and very silly. Amazing how nasty and idiotic some of these people get on here with their thousands of posts counts.

 

Again--reposting what I said which is pretty much true. Or at least more true than that reviewer if Acer indeed made some advertising error.

 

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC226LL/A?mco=MTM3NDcyOTc
care to scroll down to where it says screen? read it. 1920x1200. it's not 1280p it's 1200p.

YOU claimed that there was computers with 1920x1280. I said that's not correct. you continued to argue that it was correct.

so are you admitting we are correct? if so we can put this debate to rest.

I'm very picky when it comes to accuracy in specs. if you mis type that's not a big deal, but when you go out of your way to try and prove a false argument is true it bugs me.

I've been an active member here for 3.5 years. I know what i'm talking about. please listen.

Edit: I know 1920x1200 is better than 1920x1080. If you look around you will see i'm one of the most vocal members here who are AGAINST the 16:9 screens

 

You just don't quite do you marsh?

The current generation of MBPs are 16:10 (ie, 1280x800, 1440x900, 1920x1200). If industry trends are anything, with LCD manufacturers all shifting to 16:9 form factor, the next generation of MBP's will most likely be 16:9 as well (ie, 1600x900, 1920x1080).

 

your right, sadly, the new MBP's are more than likely to use the 1920x1080 screens.

 

btw, 1920x1200 IS STILL considered 1080p. It's just in 16:10 form factor. Traditionally, widescreen TVs (think HDTVs) use 16:9 form factor, whereas widescreen computer monitors use 16:10, hence the discrepancy.

LCD manufacturers are switching to 16:9 form factor to consolidate the two manufactoring processes (thus saving $$$). From an end user perspective, switching to 16:9 gives more horizontal real estate space at the expense of vertical space (ie a 16:10 14" LCD will have more horizontal space compared to a similar 16:9 14" LCD panel, but less vertical space). For me, this is a good thing, as I am primarily concerned with horizontal space as it will give me more space to put two windows side by side.

 

this is 100% true. 1920x1200 is also 720p 480p etc. but it's not 1280p.

 

heh, based on the lack of response, looks like marsh finally sees his erroneous ways.

Moving along, I would love to see a Envy 14 with a native resolution of 1600x900.

 

BTW. 720p is tricky. Lots of different resolutions (1280x768, 1280x800, 1360x768, 1366x768, 1440x900, or 1680x1050) are considered 720p.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p

 

The perfect Envy 17:
-i5 540m or i7 920
-Mob. Rad. 5870
-up to 8 hours of battery using a slice
-up to 16GB of ram
-3-4 HD bays
-HDMI, VGA, Firewire, 4 USB 3.0 slots
-Blu-Ray Burner (external or internal)
-1920 by 1200 resolution (16:10)

A guy can dream, right?

And WOW that resolution debate was probably the biggest waste of internet space ever.

Well, then again, there's twitter....

 

lol no i just don't sit and wait and troll on boards some kind of board warrior loser.

And error of my ways? how the hell is me saying that the mbp 17 inch is not 1080p not a factual statement.

It's 100% factual. I've posted the statement multiple times. It's 100% accurate. Go to apple's website.

And if you want to argue with Acer about their advertising --feel free to write to them and you can pretend its some nerdy board war.

 

I like your dream in fact if something like this were to come out I'd pay quite a bit of money to get it. (I'd pay easy 3000$).

Actually I don't think the rez debate is that big of a waste. really it's a big deal to a lot of people me being one of them.

oh, I'm ganna add one thing to your list, switchable graphics!

 

The MBP 17 is NOT 1920 x 1080. The MBP 17 is 1920 x 1200 native but is able to display 1080p because it has enough vertical pixels (1200) to do so. It is also able to display 720p and smaller. Basically, anything under 1200 vertical pixels. Thus, the MBP 17 can be considered to be 1080p because it CAN display that. It IS NOT 1280p because it does not have enough vertical pixels to display that ( 1200 is less than 1280 ). That, and also the fact that 1280p is nonexistent.

My experience with 1920x1200 resolution (WUXGA) on my T61p was spectacular, although it adds additional stress to your gpu and may not suit everyone because of its smaller detail level, especially since I had it on a 15inch screen =D. Probably easier on the eyes on a 17incher.

 

It really is a waste of space it does't matter between 1280 and 1200. It's pedantic and non germane totally to argue over which is which. It does't matter to the end users experience so it's meaningless. If the resolution got you to different aspect ratios like that article said--yeah it'd be important. otherwise -not meaingful.

And I like the dudes specs in the prior post.

 

and that sir is exactly what I said.

It's the machine I have now.

 

It's really pointless to argue between 1280, 1200 or 1080p because there really isn't 1280p. The point being, why do you keep on insisting on 1280p when numerous posts has already pointed out the error? The dude just points out a error in your post, why are you acting defensive with something stupid like this?

 

because it wasn't the point of the original post that I've reposted numerous times. The guy just wanted to be board warrior.

 

ok let me try something else...

I give you the choice of two laptops:
a 17 Apple Macbook Pro load with an amazing Intel Solid State Disk etc.
or a Clevo laptop with Quad socket Intel 1366 with 4xIntel Core i7 975 cpu's, 4xGTX 295, 64GB ram...but still gets 8hours of battery life?

see the problem? one of these exists the other doesn't.
if your trying to argue that the MBP 17 has a 1920x1200 screen you've won, no one was debating that, it is true that that screen could be called 1080p or less even though it is capable of much more. but it CAN'T be called 1280p as it doesn't have enough pixels, if the rez was 1920x1280 then you would be correct.

a 1920x1200 screen is capable of 1200p OR LESS
a 1680x1050 is capable of 1050p OR LESS
a 1366x768 is capable of 768p OR LESS (usually just rounded to 720p)
a 2500x1600 is capable of 1600p or less.... you get the idea.

I'm trying to show you that 1280p doesn't currently exist what are you trying to prove?

Edit:

see? you didn't say 1200 you said 1280.

oh, and on the last page I posted a link to the macbook pro, guess what it says...

 

1. I don't need to prove anything since what I actually wrote in my post was correct. Just go back to it, I've reposted it. Read it and respond. I was not talking about 1080p I was talking about 1920x 1200 resolution which DOES EXIST!!!!

2. Here you should write this guy selling his 1900 x 1280 resolution Vostro on Ebay and have a big old debate about it.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Dell-Vostro-1...temQQimsxq20091109?IMSfp=TL091109188002r19942

 

Yeah I think it's just called widescreen 1080p if you look on wiki. or WUXGA or something. But I've seen people use 1200p all the time. I don't think it's a super big deal.

 

ah we finally agree. but look at you first post it does contradict what you are saying now(which is correct)

 

yeah but there was this post 5 seconds later and people are still arguing with me about it. People get on the internet and they become idiots and like to start big old flame wars over nothing. My point was always that the 1920 by 1080 that people now think is so awesome--is not that awesome and is acutally a lot lamer than the laptops we used to have when 1920 by 1200 really the gold standard for gaming and such.

Let me know how your debate with the Vostro owner with 1920 by 1280 turns out

 

see this is the issue. I'm not debating what you have. I'm debating the claim that there is a 1920x1280 screen, which I'm telling there is no 1920x1280 screen

there IS a 1920x1200 (I own one)
there IS a 1920x1080
but there is no 1920x1280.

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC226LL/A?mco=MTM3NDcyOTc

 

well go have a fight with the Vostro Guy, the computer review magazine and the acer advertising campaign.

1920 by 1280 def exists in monitors. It's not like some impossible resolution.
Whether it's as impossible as you say for laptops or just plain does not exist...don't know, don't care.

 

care to link one to me?

1920x1280 is a 3:2 ratio screen the only current ones are 16:9 and 16:10, even on desktops.
16:10 @ 1280p = 2048x1280
16:9 @ 1280p = 2275.5555556x1280

as it stands no laptop has a screen higher than 1200p, and no monitor/screen on any computer has a resolution of 1920x1280, some have more, but none are exactly 1920x1280 as you claim in both of your first 2 post in the thread.

 

-marshman

You're complete lack of care in amending your errors/misinterpretations and further admonishing of those who are trying to help clear it up for you is what's pissing people off. If you just admit that:

"Ok, I was wrong. There is no 1280p it's probably a typo that people often do."

Then we'd all be in agreement and there wouldn't be people arguing with you. Your claim that "Now 1280 is the default option" is WRONG. PERIOD. There is no such thing as 1280p, as you so vehemently claim. 1080p is becoming the default because the movie/tv industry has adapted to it.

Refer to: the first response to this "noob" http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/24866-4-1280p-1280i

 

This thread is pure LOL's and a huge: