9262 Lcd

Does anyone know exactly what LCD the 9262 is using? Im comparing between this and the M1730 and I know from reading reviews the 1730 has LED backlight and 16ms response time (lower than the normal 25ms) .. I have read mixed comments on this board about what panel is in the 9262. I would really prefer the 16ms response time because I play a lot of FPS. Any comments in general on how the LCD looks? Also, is it possible to install your own LCD on the laptop and is it difficult or expensive?

 

I don't remember the parts number but my 9262 with the 1920x1200 glossy has a generic screeen. Others have said there is also a Samsung screen they use in the 9262. The screen I have is good, very little ghosting (I'm very sensitive to ghosting, makes me sick and feel like I'm going to throw up if it's really bad). The one problem I have with it and also had with my Dell XPS Gen 2 is the color is off on dark purples and dark blues when playing games. At least it's off from what I'm use to seeing on my desktop LCD's.


I'll see if I can find the other posts where people list the exact model numbers for the different screens.


EDIT: OK, I have my screens part number pulled with Everest. APP9C69 no name or other way to identify it to find the manufacture.

 

According to the D90xC service manual, dated June 2007, the ones used are:
LG LP171W02-A4K1(GT/IPS) 17" WSXGA+
LG LP171WU1-A4K4(Glare Type) 17.1" WUXGA
AU B170PW01 V1 (WXGA, Glare Type) 1440*900
LG LP171WE2-TL03(Glare Type) 17" WSX

 

That's right, LG not Samsung, sorry. But mine for sure doesn't have the LG screen and it's supposed to be the 17" Glare Type Super Clear Ultra Bright Glossy screen. At least that's what I ordered in my 9262.

 

I have an ato screen and it sux alot

lots of light bleed and it's dim.

I hate my screen and will probably buy a 300 dollar glossy LG WUXGA off of ebay soon.

 

Did you get the 1920x1200 Glossy with the $200 pixel protection? I've seen hints that when people get that they end up with the generic screen since they have less problems with bad pixels. Now I don't know if this is true or not but I did get that screen with the pixel protection and I ended up with the generic screen. Hhmm..

 

I have 0 dead pixels.

it's just a crap screen.

read the about the real reviews non biased of the d901 and people say that the screens aren't that bright.

the dimness is what bothers me

my 1710 had such a bright screen my eyes would water if I put on a white background.

my 9260 looks like the m1710 @half brightness.

it's pathetic. just another thing I think that sux hard about this notebook.

lets see.

cards aren't up to par.

bios sux hard with 5 changeable options... the ones that actually make a diff..

no overclocking

dim screen

 

That doesn't sound good. The display is very important to me.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/archive/index.php/t-210575.html

Some guy here claims to have been givin a WU3 which has been contrast and response (16ms)... I wonder if Xotic has the WU3 and would put one in if I requested it.. hmm

 

I got mine from Xotic, still less then a month old. I'll post the model number of the screen when I got from work, using Everest but it is not the LG screen for sure.

 

ok dont get 0 dead pixel warranty, COMPLETE waste of money.
i have a 9260 and i was thinking about it, but i didnt get it and i have no dead pixels... even if you do get the warranty, the max dead pixels they allow is like around 7, if there are more they throw away the panel... and besides... whats 7 pixels compared to 2,304,000(1920x1200)...think about it :S

And to answer your question, the screen for the 926* is beautiful, probably the best ive ever seen, the colors are so vibrant, when you see your friends monitor its just not the same.
no ghosting either and your always on top of your game in games, counter strike for example

 

Do you know if you have the LG or the generic? It sounds like the LG is fine but the generic is poor. If I end up getting a Sager I won't do it without getting confirmation im getting an LG that's for sure.

 

The LCD of the d901c is good compared to the ones we usually see on mainstream laptops. Colours are ok and the image is very crisp.

Nevertheless I also think it is dim. Brightness Level is always max on mine and sometimes it looks too dark during the day. In the beginning it did not bother me at all (I had so many things to test out). But now at the office I wish I could put the brightness level some points above its max.

As for bleeding, let's say it is not really that bad (I've seen worst on desktop LCDs). It does not bother me at all apart from the boot screen, but it is definitely a lot worst then my Toshiba M200 that is a Tablet PC and show no signings of bleeding even after I cracked the cover. Nevertheless, black is black on the Clevo LCD, unlike the Toshiba.

The best I've seen on a laptop is from Sony high end Dual Lamp.

Trance

 

I was just unlucky. This is my second 9262. The first had 3 stuck/hot pixels next to each other(bright white 4" from the top and center screen) and a dead pixel next to those and because I didn't get the dead pixel warranty they couldn't fix it. I had to use the 30 day if not satisfied you can return it for your money back bs and ended up losing my shipping cost, both ways. I went with another company after that and got a new one for about $150 cheaper than the other but I still lost money since I bought the dead pixel warranty with the second. And to make matters worse I asked them if they check for this kind of problem before they ship the notebooks and they said yes, but even if they find dead/stuck pixels if they are under 7 they will still ship it to you like that, unless you have the 0 dead pixel warranty.

Anyway, most of the time it's not a problem. My last notebook from 3 years ago was fine and still hasn't had any issues with dead/hot pixels. It's a crap shoot and the odds are in your favor.

 

I have the generic. The image is nice but some of the colors are way off. Dark purples and dark blues look washed out when playing games. I play some online games and when people link items in chat, items of a higher quality have a purple name, but on my 9262 they look almost blue instead of purple, and items that should look dark blue have a power puff blue color. My old Dell XPS Gen 2 (about 3 years old now) looks the same way.

 

Hopefully I'm wrong, but I doubt if Everest will give you the true part number for the display in your system. As far as I know, Clevo still follows the customary industry standard of using display units that do not provide their own EDID data to the system. Instead, EDID support is provided by some sort of BIOS or ROM chip proxy method. As part of implementing that proxy method, many OEMs fill in the vendor information with the defaults stipulated by Microsoft in order to enable the display to play nicely with Windows even though it doesn't provide proper EDID data.

The simple workaround is to make their displays generic units so that Windows configures the display from available INF files. To this end, Microsoft has provided a set of generic EDID manufacturer IDs. The generic OEM IDs are:
Manufacturer ID Maximum capability Preferred mode

• MS_0001 640x480x60 Hz 640x480x60 Hz
  .
• MS_0002 800x600x60 Hz 800x600x60 Hz
  .
• MS_0003 1024x768x60 Hz 1024x768x60 Hz
  .
• MS_0004 1152x864x60 Hz 1152x864x60 Hz
  .
• MS_0005 1280x1024x60 Hz 1280x1024x60 Hz
  .
• MS_0006 1600x1200x60 Hz 1600x1200x60 Hz
  .

The attachment below is a screenshot clip from the Microsoft article on the subject, Mobile System Displays and Windows, v.1.2c. If I remember correctly, my vaio returns a vendor ID of MS_0005, even though the lcd itself was made by _Toshiba (I figured that out by cracking the thing open and reading the sticker on the back of the LCD - even got pix to prove it ).

 

Actually Everest does, I learned this from another thread and tried it out, here's the link.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/archive/index.php/t-182531.html

 

@Stroxuss - that's good to know, at least on that bit Clevo wasn't as lazy (or secretive, more likely) as _Sony.

 

Well, I love my LG LPL0B0A ,sure,it could be brighter,but the colors are vivid,it`s good a pretty good contrast and it`s got good viewing angles. I would not buy another one since I`m reeeeeally glad mine came with no dead/bright pixels

 

Justin at Xotic confirmed to me the 9262 is using the LP171WU1... im trying to confirm if it's the old revision that was 25ms and 500:1 or the new one which is 16ms and 700:1..

What's weird is everyone that is reporting these "generic" panels... can anyone here confirm they have an LG and report what they think of it?

 

I just told you I have an LG and it looks sharp and bright. I even have a video on youtube with it. Or more.

 

I've owned both the 1730 and the 9262 and think both screens are excellent.

On the Sager, the brightness key only increases brightness up to the maximum set in the nVidia Control Panel. Increase this value and the screen can be made blindingly bright.

 

Im trying to understand...

You mean the Sager itself has a brightness key? ... if increasing that isn't bright enough then you can go into the Nvidia contol panel and have the option of increasing the brightness even more? Maybe that's why some on here are complaining about the display being dim they don't know about that option?

In your opinion is the 9262 screen as nice as the 1730? I wonder if you have one of those generics or an actual LG on your 9262... sounds like you may have the latter.

 

that's fake brightness dude.

 

DEXGO is jus mad cause he dumped his sh|t off a stool...




the lcd on the 9262 is clear and as bright as it needs to be...

 

the lcd sucks. its grainy and half the brightness of a good lcd. Of course I got it up the ass ordered a 9262 with a glossy wsxga which was suppose to come with at least a 300nit WE2 but instead came with a crappy older model 170nit W02. I've been wasting money trying to get a dual lamp screen in this notebook. No luck so far.

 

your just mad because the lcd does suck, lots of people aknowledge this and all say the same thing.

My laptop looks perfect and has not one issue.

 

I am also very dissapointed in this screen. my m1710 was soo bright and nice.

what about just ordering a LG off of ebay??

will it still be not bright because we will be using the same lamp/inverter? and that's as bright as it will go?

 

??? Isn't brightness ... brightness?

 

Yes. My 9262 screen is as nice as the screen of the 1730 I had for three weeks, and I think both are far better than average for notebooks.

Yes, I have an LG Phillips screen. It is probably what LG identifies as the "LP171WU1" which has the following specs:

Active Area [mm] 367.2 X 229.5
Outline Dimension [mm] 382.2 x 244.5
Thickness [mm] 6.3
Resolution 1920 x RGB X 1200
Aspect Ratio 16:10
Pixel Pitch [mm] 0.191(133)
Number of Colors 262,144(6 bit)
Luminance [cd/㎡] 260
Color Saturation (%) 50
Weight [g] 690
Contrast Ratio 600:1
Interface LVDS 2port
Viewing Angle [˚,U/D/L/R] 120/140
Color Temperature [K] -
Response Time [ms] 16
MP Schedule Now

 

have you heard of this guy?

Everything is relative.
But brightness is still brightness, adding more white to the image will not make it brighter. It`s the kind of thing an electrical engineer learns at school and I know

 

Are you telling me that Clevo has perfected some form of gravitronics that enables them to increase/decrease apparent screen brightness by manipulating the principles of general relativity?

On more mundane topics - since I only did one year of general engineering and 1 year of aeronautical engineering (which was still mostly the general stuff), I must have missed the EE nuttiness ; still, without context (e.g., some idea of what this other "brightness button" does), I am at a loss to understand why that "brightness" is "false brightness" - I am, of course, open to correction and instruction.

 

Well let`s put it this way.
Colors are on a line , called a temperature color line.
It goes from almost not to some few thousand K .
So a 3000-3500 K color would look as a perfect white,anything below that would give a warm sensation and better feeling to the eyes,anything above that would be a cold temperature, a cold color therefore seeming darker.
If you increase the white level it seems as if the color gets warmer,and the eyestrain gets diminished,giving a sensation of increased brightness.
However,it only works for dimm or "not so bright" screens.
A screen that is already bright,and is subject to the increasing of brightness I mentioned, would seem foggy.
There`s only so much a "fake brightness" can do

 

And this differs from just boosting the power going to the light source?

 

It`s all in the eyes. The eye is an organ which can be very easily manipulated and fooled. What to you may seem as birght, if you have a good eyesight,to me it might be foggy,if my sight si even better,or dim,if my sight is worse.
Anyway, I`d apreciate some dual lamp screens for comparison. Mine is awesome, but far from the best. At times I`d want it birghter,but only when it`s fully dark in the room(midnight gaming )
Other than that, it`s cool.
A friend just bought a Flatron 22` LCD and man is that thing cool and bright or what...2ms,5000:1 contrast ratio,that sure makes a difference.
I want to see that in a laptop screen someday...such a crisp image...

 

no using the nvidia panel to change brightness will produce a washed out look. It will be "brighter" but at the cost of color saturation and such. I've messed with the adjustments a lot and well it just isn't the same as having a physically bright lcd, like dual lamp lcds.

 

Here is a question...

Is the lighting system used behind the M1730 and 9262 different? I keep hearing the M1730 has LED lighting but can't confirm. Does the 9262 have LED lighting too?

 

No it hasn`t. It`s a regular lcd.
I am looking forward to dual lamp screens though...

 

I suppose there is no point in changing screens.

the thing that bothers me the most is thebrightness.

in a completely dark room it's ok.

but in the daytime like right now.it looks like 3/4 of the brightness it should be.

 

Mheh. I guess it`s all a matter of taste.
I am still glad I got a perfect screen

 

Perceived brightness is a very subjective thing, and maximum perceived brightness depends on all the settings in the nVidia control panel (including curves), and depends on the user's eyes as well.

Dual lamps have nothing to do with brightness, they just distribute the backlight more evenly. As long as the backlight has sufficient luminance, maximum color brightness depends entirely on an individual sub-pixel's ability to "absorb" all colors but its own, or, to put it another way, to twist the polarization of its own color frequency with a satisfactory exclusion of all the other frequencies.

 

the image and colors look washed out when the nvidia brightness is turned up.

the lamp does brighten the screen.

my projector on lamp save mode is not that bright but still you can see the picture.

turn on full power lamp mode and it's so bright your eyes water on white backgrounds.

 

Well im no expert but my old notebook was a fujitsu and i believe it had a duallamp display and looked perfect. The lcd in this 9262 can't even compare in quality and brightness.

 

Thanks - that's the answer I was looking for, together with eleron911's very erudite (anything that goes over my head is "erudite" - unfortunately, the over-the-head route is too well-travelled ).

So, basically, what the NVidia control panel adjustment does is to - as eleron911 put it - add more white to the picture rather than than upping the output of the light source itself.

 

Pretty much, just try it yourself. I think I just saw Michael Jackson`s arse :twitcy:
/revert to regular brightess

 

(1) the only thing that's going to lighten up the screen on this vaio is bleach

(2) :smile: :laugh: :twitcy: Are you saying MJ's downclocking as well?

 

I am glad I`m no kid and well passed 18 and I can say whatever I want about him
Right now, the room I`m in is dark, it`s 6 AM here(I should probably go to bed soon ) and I`ve tested it. Although increasing the brightness and gamma in the nvidia control panel does seem to be outputting more luminance,it`s not. It`s just my stupid eyes being fooled by the excess white,since the dark images are no longer that dark.
Think of it this way,relating to Einstein`s relativity : your brightness is on a scale from 0 to 100. But you need 120. So what you do is move the scale from 0 to 20 , and that way you`ll have brightness from 20 to 120. But what before was dark,now is starting to feel "brighter"
No more boogie man and shadows on a overly ,ahem,"bright" screen.

 

Well, I just use the solution, get one that goes to 11:

 

Ain`t technology grand?