Screen quality Clevo/Sager WUXGA vs HP/Sony

As thread title states, anyone know the screen quality of the 17 inch WUxGA screens in these laptops vs the ones from HP/Sony?

Always thought the Sony's had the best screens on the PC side of the world. Has that changed or is it just luck of the draw on what screen is built into the Sagers/Clevo that you happen to get?

 

The fact of the matter is that Sager, as an OEM (someone is going to be real happy ), gets the parts and assembles them. They get the screens from the exact the same places other manufacturers get. I am not sure what to tell you about the overall quality. Some members here switches a few screens to get a proper one, some are still waiting, but the fact of the matter is that when you order huge amounts of screens (like Dell or HP) there is always a chance you will get many with defects and while Sager isn't quite mainstream their notebooks are less affected by this. That is if you get what I'm trying to say.
The screens in the Sagers are very good by the way, but I think the glossy coating has something to do with that and the fact that they always use the latest technology available and don't wait a lot of time to get new batches.

 

That helps actually -- I think what you are saying there is some quality control.

I think more specifically -- what I am asking is that are the WUXGA screens they are sourcing from the better LCD manufacturers for that screen size? ie LG screen vs Samsung screen cs Sony (im not sure if they manufacture these anymore)?

Thanks.

 

Not necessarily, but usually people don't get bad screens with Sager. Nobody really complained about the WUXGA screens here.

 

what about wxsga screens

 

Someone complained about them (MegaBUD I think), but still, just isolated cases. No one started a thread around here complaining about how bad the screens are.

 

I believe that the WUXGA used on sagers is among the best screens I`ve seen, and a lot of people would agree. I`ve seen screen from 1280x800 up to WUXGA on Sonys, HPs, Dells, Acers, and none was as crisp an uniformly lid as my WUXGA. I placed my HP next to it, and as a matte screen, the HP one was terrible compared to the glossy from the Sager. I`d never buy anything else than a glossy, and WUXGA.

 

so no one like wsxga besides me? I haven't received it yet it better be damn good

 

I had a really nice HP screen. It was better than my Sager 5760 screen so I returned that notebook. It was probably a generic nobody screen that I got though as everyone else seems to have been ones than what I got.

 

No one said that WSXGA is bad, it's just that more people here prefer having a WUXGA for a 17" (HDTV movies).

 

Not to say I dislike my 5760 uxga screen (when I bought it I was blown away by its deep blacks and brightness), but...:
Have in mind if you need it for critical/professional colour work, that this LG/Philips display is like most laptop displays a 6bit one, and not an 8bit one. (16mil colours vs 16.7)
It will be hard to calibrate using a spider, and will display images brighter than it should, clipping off the subtle light and dark tones.
Also its viewing angle is not great, giving a yellowish tint when viewed by the sides.

 

I'd like to ask too!
Hows the " 17" WUXGA "Glare Type" Super Clear Ultra Bright Glossy Screen (1920x1200)" screen for the Sager NP5793 ?

 

Before reading the rest of my comment, please keep in mind that screen choice is, ultimately, a matter of subjective personal choice, so no matter what I say, it may be completely irrelevant to anyone else's experience. Also, screen choice is also extremely dependent on the environment in which it is used - I use a matte at work, which I prefer because under the lighting conditions a glossy would have too much glare and would drive me batty (well, ok, battier ).

On the other hand, at home I really wish that I had a glossy instead of the matte that I have on my pokey ole vaio. I too have compared my matte to the glossy on my wife's _HP and, quite frankly, the matte screen always looks like it has a thin coating of dried mud on it compared to the glossy screen.

So, in terms of discussing the pros and cons of the screens offered by different manufacturers on their systems, it would probably be best to avoid comparisons of matte vs. glossy except for (a) doing such a comparison with the same company (i.e., a matte Clevo/Sager compared to a glossy Clevo/Sager), or (b) in the case that a manufacturer only offers one choice (e.g., matte or glossy, but not both).

Just my 1.5 cents' worth (inflation, dontcha know ).

 

Point taken, but since most of the screens are from LG, Samsung etc it ain`t far-fetched to compare them.
Anybody who does not believe how good the WUXGA's from LG are should check my video on youtube:
(watch at the end where I do the screen review ) http://youtube.com/watch?v=1z-c12iKWB4

 

The WUXGA on my 9262 is good but not great, although most would call it great. When the screen is black you can see minor light bleed toward the bottom of the screen and uneven lighting throughout. It sounds worse than it is and you can't even tell when there are images on the screen; I am very picky and would've sent it back if it didn't look really good during use. The screen on my Vaio AR 570 definitely beat it hands down, but then again the rest of the computer sucked so I sent it back and bought a sager. So far I am very satisfied with the performance and value and would buy one again.

 

I just got a 5793 w/WUXGA 1920x1200 and I love it. It kicks the crap out of my HP dv6338se.