Screen Resolution and Advice

Why does Lenovo use 1366x768 on like 90% of the laptops it offers? I really want a high resolution from them without having to buy the Y500 or Y580 which weigh like 6lbs.

Also, has the U510 come out yet? I've been looking at it and I might get it after I go to a store and see the 1366x768 resolution for myself. I have heard its pretty bad, but I want to test it first before I completely write it off.

 

Well you can get an X1 Carbon with a 14inch 1600x900 display. It's one of the lightest notebooks in the world, only 3.1lbs and you can get it with a i7 CPU. So if you have the budget there you have a perfect fit to your listed requirements of weight and resolution.

 

If portability and resolution are your only two priorities, then you can check out Dell XPS 12 which offers Full HD on 12.5" screen I think. Ony the retina display offers higher PPI.

 

Looks like you didn't look at Lenovo's business laptop offerings... T530 can be had with either 900p or 1080p and weighs ~5.5lbs. Same with the W530.

T430 has a 900p display option.

X230 still has 768p, but the PPI is still decent (a 12.5" 768p display has the same PPI as a 15.6" 1080p display), and you have the option of upgrading to an IPS display.

 

Screen resolution is turning into a buzz word these days. The truth of the matter is that a good IPS 768 screen can look miles better than a 900p or 1080p screen anyday. If you are trying to have 2 open windows side by side, ok, I see your reasoning, but if its for "the effect" then what you really need to do is compare an IPS to a TN screen.

 

Depends on which TN panels you're comparing to the IPS displays. For example, the 1080p panel in my W520 (95% NTSC color gamut), when correctly calibrated, looks pretty similar to the Dell desktop IPS monitors I've seen. I'm not a professional graphics designer or someone that should be hyper sensitive to the differences in 8-bit and 10-bit color, so I'd imagine that for the average layman a TN panel with a high NTSC color gamut would be good to use (though obviously IPS beats TN in viewing angles, hands-down). Especially considering that I hear a lot of people saying that Apple's MBP displays (both Retina and non-Retina) seem to be "colorful", when they're actually around 70% NTSC color gamut.

 

It really depends what the machine is used for. With almost any kind of 'content production' applications, which typically display a number of menus, toolbars and extra windows (software development tools, image tools, MS Office with Ribbon not hidden etc. etc.), this extra stuff cuts 200-300 pixels from the vertical resolution, yet you can't really switch it off (as then working isn't as efficient). And with this in mind, the 768 vs 900 vs 1080 becomes more like 500 vs 650 vs 850 - a huge practical difference.

Also, there is an opposite way of thinking, which is as true as any. Why on earth would I pay more for an IPS screen on a laptop, if it's not even close to the quality or size of a dedicated $200 Dell monitor. It's typically viewed by a single user sitting right in front of it, and the screen is small, so viewing angles don't matter all that much (if the screen angle is adjustable, which is sometimes not the case). But at least the laptop should let me do work when I have to be mobile, show me 4 paragraphs of the document being edited and not just 2, becoming a constant exercise in scrolling and loosing context in the process.

 

The pixel density of a 12.5" HD screen is 125 while a 15.6" FHD is 141. Text will be smaller on the 15.6" screen.

To me the bump from HD to HD+ isn't that great, but if I were getting a 15" screen, I'd want HD+.