Torn between T42 XGA screen, and T42 SXGA screen

Hi Everyone,

I've decided on a T42 Thinkpad with 15" screen. But I'm agonizing between the XGA (1024x768) resolution and the SXGA (1400x1050), and would appreciate any input.

On one hand, the SXGA screen seems to be highly recommended by my friends, posts on this notebookreview.com discussion board, as well as the IBM salesperson I called. And since I'll be using my new T42 for 3+ years, I don't want to regret my purchase over such a long period of time.

But on the other hand, the lowest cost SXGA models cost hundreds more than any XGA model. Since it's likely I'll use my new T42 at 1024x768 res, I'm having a hard time justifying spending hundreds more on a SXGA T42. Currently, I like my Dell 14.1" at 1024x768, though it has a higher native resolution. I would be using my new laptop for outlook, word processing, e-mail, acrobat writer, lots of multi-tasking.

Any input is appreciated!

 

Have you seen both screens in person? It really just comes down to what you are more comfortable with. My sister just bought a T42, and preferred the XGA res. Whenever she uses my desktop PC with 21" monitor at 1600x1200, she's always commenting on how hard it is to read with the smaller type.

I, on the other hand, always go with more real estate, so I went with the SXGA T42 (14.1"). I'm still waiting for it to ship, but when I was playing around with my sis' T42, I found it hard to have more than one window onscreen at the same time with the XGA screen.

So in the end, I guess I really didn't help you out at all, did I? [ ] I'd really recommend that you try and find someone or some local store that has notebooks with SXGA screens to see if it fits your needs. In the end, you'll be the one using it all the time, so there's no point in going with the SXGA like everyone seems to be pushing you to if you yourself don't feel comfortable with it. Whatever you choose, I hope that you enjoy your T42!

 

Thanks Tryer, it was helpful.

I did go to COMP USA, but all their 15" notebooks were XGA. Adjusting resolutions on a larger screen (16"+) won't be helpful, since the res.-to-screensize ratio would be diff. than on a 15" screen. I'll try Best Buy later.

 

Warren, Ive got this same problem. XGA or SXGA. Ive gone to BB and didnt find anything either. But you may find something different. Good luck and let us know.

 

You might want to try and set your desktop monitor to a resolution where the pixels per sq inch is about the same as the density on the SXGA screen. This way you can get a general idea of what how small things are. Of course the workspace area will most likely not be the same, but the image ratios should be similar, at least if I'm understanding how pixels are measured.

 

Thanks. I'll check Fry's Electronics.

Another question on the same topic: If you set the T42's SXGA native resolution to a lower resolution setting (say from 1400x1050 to 1024x768), will the view quality get grainy/result in lower view quality? I heard that this is a problem with many notebooks. I called IBM about this, and the guy says this kind of issue was fixed; but i've heard otherwise.

 

I wish I had SXGA. It is the one thing I do not like about my T41. When I go from my desktop LCD at 1280x1024 to my laptop, everything seems so big, but it is totally a personal preference. I would agree look at some different screens if you can. None of the big box stores seem to carry anything but XGA. Good Luck.






I know things, things that could get me killed


Thinkpad T41:
* 1.6Ghz Pentium M * 768Mb Memory * 40Gb Hitachi 7200RPM * Panasonic UJ-845-B DVD+RW *

 

I just received my T42 (typing this reply on it now), and checked out the different resolution settings. If you want to run full screen at 1024x768 resolution, then it will be somewhat "fuzzy" looking; though I think you can run at a native 1024x768 in a reduced screen mode, though I doubt most people will be happy with this route.

After seeing the SXGA screen in person, I am glad that I went with the higer resolution; I even reduced the font size down by one setting in firefox.

Another thing to remember if buying direct from IBM is that they have a 30-day return policy, so if you end up deciding that you made the wrong decision, you can always get the other model.

 

tryer brings up a good point of the advantage of buying direct through IBM...30-day return for another notebook isn't bad, even though you will pay more going that route.

I prefer SXGA also, but it's all personal preference. If you've been using XGA screens and like it I'd stick with it. For programmers or those that work with multiple documents displaying on the screen at one time SXGA is almost a necessity.

DigitalCameraReview.com | BargainPDA.com | TabletPCReviewSpot.com

 

Thanks for the helpful observations. I'm surprised that the IBM sales rep. told me that there is no distortion when the SXGA is set to lower res. That's one reason why these discussion groups are valuable.

As I continue my search for a 15" SXGA to test, Tryer (or anyone with an SXGA 15" T42), can I ask you with 2 more questions:

1) How does your screen look set at 1280x1024? Is it still "fuzzy"?
2) When the screen is fuzzy, is it still readable?

 

I just tried all of the lower resolution settings, and they are all readable, but I definitely would not want to use them on a regular basis... the interpolation makes all text blocky and blurry. By runnung at a lower resolution, you end up losing many of the advantages of the LCD screen, which is the sharpness and clarity of text.

 

14.1" should be XGA.
15.0" should be SXGA.
The other options are silly.

XGA in a 14 is generally ideal in my opinion. If you are doing a lot of intricately involved work, SXGA @ 15 might be preferable.

 

I should add that XGA in the 15-inch form is for those who are using a notebook computer in a desktop-replacement fashion. The discerning user will never be happy with a desktop-replacement notebook (for starters, the ergonomics are crap), nor with a notebook that tries to be everything at once. A notebook is meant to supplement the powerhouse one keeps at home, period.

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by Minko

 

Here's what I find ideal:

12.1" - 1024x768
14.1" - 1400x1050
15.1" - 1600x1200

Having a 14.1" screen with a low resolution (1024x768) is just silly... icons are so big the computer looks like a toy. Higher resolution makes everything soooo sharp. I love my T42 SVGA+ 14.1".

 

Can anyone tell me how does a 15 ibm Notebook screen running at 1400x1050 compare to say a dektop 17 Lcd running at
1280x1024. would the 15 look smaller or similar.

 

I too am deciding between the xga and sxga, but on the 14" T42. I notice that in the specs for the two different displays, the XGA model (Radeon 7500, 32 mb)has the battery life at 5 hours, while the other SXGA (Radeon 9600, 64 mb) has it at 4 hours. Is there really this much difference?

 

Whoops, my fault. I was comparing an M725 (1.6 GHz) to an M735 (1.7 GHz). Still, even with the faster processor, this seems like a major drop in battery life...

Also, I realize this is more of a video card issue than a resolution one. I've re-posted in the appropriate topic. Sorry.

 

Would the appearance on a 14.1" screen set at 1400x1050 look very similar to a 15" screen set at 15"? About how many % larger would the icons and lettering be on the 15"? Since I still can't find a 15" SXGA to test, I'm just trying to approximate how a 15"SXGA would look like. [ ]

Thanks.

 

Oppss...I mis-stated my question above. I meant to ask whether the appearance on a 14.1" screen set at 1400x1050 look very similar to a 15" screen also set at 1400x1050? About how much larger would the icons and lettering be on the 15"?

Since I still can't find a 15" SXGA to test, I'm just trying to approximate how a 15"SXGA would look like.

 

warrenw,

This is an overly simplistic answer, but the icons and text will be exactly 7.1% larger on the 15" than on the 14", as long as they are the same resolution.

So the difference will be noticable...but just barely. I'd say the two screens will look very similar.

Persoanlly, I'd say get the 15" unless you really want to keep the machine's weight to a minimum or you don't want to shell out the extra $$$.

All that being said...if you plan to run the screen on 1024X768 then it is completely insane to get an SXGA. Running an LCD in non-native mode reduces the quality of the images, period. There's no getting around it. LCDs don't work like CRTs, you can't just "create" resolutions. So if you're going to run it at 1024X768, I'd definitely say get the 14" XGA.

RazorsEdge:

Text and icons on the 15" will look noticably smaller...about 24% smaller to be exact. This is to be expected, the 15" you describe has MORE pixels than the 17", so even if they were the same size the 15" would have smaller icons. Throw in the 2" size advantage of the 17" and the difference becomes significant.

 

Thanks Mongoose, and everyone else. This discussion board works well.
BTW, I'm going for the XGA...the SXGA appearance on a laptop screen is just too small for me.

 

Hey warren I found this link that might help you a little...

http://www.powernotebooks.com/articles/index.php?action=fullnews&id=21

 

OK, here is my take on the optimum resolution subject:

I used to think that I HAD TO have plain XGA on a 14.1" or even a 15" screen. My eyes are not young at all, to say the least.

Then, I ordered two 14.1" Thinkpads. One XGA, the other SXGA+.
First off, the SXGA+ screen is so much sharper it is not even comparable to the XGA screen. Text on the XGA looks like it is made out of pixels (which of course all text is) but the SXGA+ looked like solid text, not pixelated text. Again, no comparision whatsoever.

Now, yes, the native text is smaller on the SXGA+.

That is why I bought and use Liquid View from:
http://personalcomputing.portrait.com/us/products/lv_overview.html

Liquid View makes just about everything in Windows larger. Some of it is the same as what you can tweak in XP, but it is much easier to do. This includes the desktop icons, most text, and most applications. Also does the taskbar which you can not do with tweaking in XP.
It won't do some dialog boxes, but I can live with that.
For web-surfing I use Firefox, which scales the text. TRUE...graphics will not scale. The only browser that scales graphics is Opera, and I am not a huge opera fan. So, all graphics will be smaller, including graphics such as smilies to pictures, but the graphics, although smaller are also sharper and more detailed.
To be honest, some of it looks and feels a little bit "off" but the benefits of the higher resolution outweigh the issues. Everything is just so very, very much sharper.

The next version of Windows will be fully scaleable, so when it comes out a higher resolution laptop will be much more useful.

Also, I did not want to get "stuck" with a Thinkpad with a Radeon 7500 or 9000, like the XGA models have. Going to SXGA+ gave me a 9600, and now you can get an X300.

You can download a free trial of the Liquid View. Check it out and give me your impression. (No, I have nothing to do with Liquid View or its authors, just have enjoyed it and wanted to share what it can do for the "issue" that is being discussed here (XGA vs SXGA+ notebooks).

Andrew
Austin, TX

 

Hi aamsel,

Thanks for the software tip. Just wondering how much interpolation or fuzziness do you get on the screen items that you scale with your liquid view program?

 

No fuzziness at all.
I am using the screen at native resolution, just scaling it.

Actually there is fuzziness ONLY in the taskbar icons. I don't know what Liquid View does to the taskbar icons, but they are a little fuzzy when enlarged. That is it.

Interpolation...I am sure there is some, don't know.

Again, it is not a perfect program by any means, it is a "stopgap" measure to get me through with Windows XP. Any future OS I would use would have scalability.


Andrew
Austin, TX

 

Hi warrenw. I hope all these fine responses have helped you make your decision. If not, I added my opinion here to answer another poster yesterday ( http://www.notebookreview.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13349 ). Just look for Brainpicker about three posts down.

I'll add a few more opinions on this issue with your post now.

My problem initially was similar to yours, and I was frustrated with the scale of options but then not being able to configure exactly what I thought I wanted, in similar machines, with the only difference being the screen/video card (IBM has a HUGE array of different machines but getting one just the way I wanted was impossible... getting one even close was very hard to find... and when I did find them they were not offered at any discount like my 3rd, 4th, 5th choices were). The nearly $400 difference didn't seem worth the money right now, and since purchasing I have been lucky to see an SXGA in person which made me glad I chose the XGA to MY eyes. No one sees the same and I only wish I had the vision to sit in front of SXGA or even UXGA and read/write for an hour. I don't. Ah to be 25 again! The pictures are much prettier though with SXGA.

As far as an XGA with a 7500 card being "obsolete" soon like some here are warning... well, not for ME! I still have a 7 year old Toshiba Tecra 8000 with a 14" XGA and a 4MB video card from a company who went out of business 6 years ago for which there hasn't been a driver update for who knows how long, but I still use it as a fine reading/writing machine (among MANY other uses) with Windows 2000 Pro and it is wonderful. I'm using it to write this reply. Hey, I'm a guy who just decided a few months ago to finally upgrade to XP on my desktop because I didn't see any pressing need (or significant difference) between XP and 2000 Pro to do so until then (there really aren't many differences that make it worth the time to most people in my opinion). The ONLY reason I did it was to take advantage of the Clear Type which with my bad eyes does make a nice difference at this stage. Do you think I really care what Microsoft comes out with next year (if it arrives on time!) that other people are saying will make MY laptop obsolete? You are using your laptop for writing tasks from what I can see from the last sentence of your initial statement. Writing isn't something where higher resolutions are an advantage to MOST people (in fact for MOST people it's just the oposite). Just ask yourself if the extra money at this point in your life (financially) is worth what advantage YOU see an SXGA will bring YOU and go which your gut.

In any case I do HIGHLY recommend (like many others here) that anyone not sure of their decision buy direct from IBM to take advantage of the 30-day return period. It's worth any small extra cost and the sales reps are top rate. I used to be a Toshiba buyer but IBM won me over with my previous purchase when Toshiba seemed to put all there focus on screens and neglected features/ergonomics/construction. That's why with my latest buy I didn't even look at another laptop besides IBM.

Good luck!

Yak

 

I have tried both screen on two "similar" laptop. My first laptop was a Dell I4000 and it was xga on 14"...my second one which was sxga+ on 14" (Latitude C610)..... and sxga is great no fuzzynest and crysp detail...depends on your personal taste....good luck in finding the perfect resolution.....

 

Well, as you implied, it all depends on what you want to do with the notebook, and for how long.

There are still people running Windows 95 and earlier OS's, and, as long as every ap they want to run works on those OS's, and they don't want any brand new ap's, then they are fine.

You are correct about Longhorn in that we have no idea when it will be released, but we have been assured that DirectX 9.0 is a requirement. The OS is being coded now in Alpha stage, and we know that for sure. So....if you EVER want to run Longhorn, you won't be able to do it on a 7500, 9000, 9200 etc. Again, all depends on your wants and needs. You can't ever be fully "future proof" but, if the future is next year, to me, that is worth considering when I consider 3 years to be the "life expectancy" of a notebook purchase.

As for you buying XP for True Type, I must tell you that you would not believe the difference between XGA and SXGA+ with True Type. It is simply not comparable.

Please understand...this is coming from someone that NEVER wanted anything above XGA on an notebook. I fully believed that my eyes could never work with anything higher in resolution than XGA. However, the first time I saw an SXGA+ Thinkpad, I decided that I had to somehow make it work...it was just THAT MUCH BETTER. I have mentioned most of the tradeoffs such as graphics size, dialog boxes, etc. but it is still far superior in all other ways.

Finally, YES, absolutely order direct from IBM. 30 days from invoice date to return. No questions asked. About 25+ days in your hands or more, depending on shipping. If you get the free shipping, it will cost you all of about $12 to ship back FEDEX ground.

Andrew
Austin, TX



<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by brainpicker...As far as an XGA with a 7500 card being "obsolete" soon like some here are warning... well, not for ME!...The ONLY reason I did it was to take advantage of the Clear Type which with my bad eyes does make a nice difference at this stage....In any case I do HIGHLY recommend (like many others here) that anyone not sure of their decision buy direct from IBM to take advantage of the 30-day return period...<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'></font id='quote'></blockquote id='quote'>

 

Hi aamsel,

I am using the trial liquidview now on my dell SXGA+...have to say that i'm impressed.

But maybe you help me understand a couple things? Though I've read through the Help files and played around w/ the program,
1) i'm not sure of the diff. b/t 'desktop scaling' and 'application scaling'--does application scaling have to do more with the text?
2) what are 'presets'?

Thanks.

 

I tried to figure that out for awhile as well.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no difference, you just choose one or the other. I chose just desktop scaling to 120 percent, and that was it. I will contact Portrait Displays and ask them. If I get different information, I will let you know.

Andrew
Austin, TX


<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by warrenw

 

If you want to see what graphics/text will look like (size-wise) on 15" 1400X1050 laptop (before purchasing one), find a high quality 19" (18" viewable) CRT and set the resolution to 1600X1200. (It will be off by a little, but not enough to worry about.) However, be sure to keep in mind that the laptop screen will be much sharper. Also, on the same CRT, 1280X960 will provide about the same graphics/text size as a 14" 1024X768 laptop. Also be sure to consider your ability to comfortably focus at short distances for extended periods of time - With the higher resolution laptops, you will find it necessary to do so at least part of the time.