New vZ: Thoughts about full HD on 13.1"

Hi guys,

I just tested my new European Z11 model with full HD and Core i7 for a couple of days and I'm a bit concernd about the full HD panel. Here are my thoughts:

Pros:
+ very bright and sharp
+ very nice colors
+ viewing angels are good

Cons:
- visible areaways at the bottom of the screen
- uneven lighting
- very small fonts, even with DPI scaling of Windows 7

So most of the concerns dosen't really bother me, but I think I can't handle the very small fonts for a very long time, since I would like to use this machine as my primary working machine.

My questions are now: Will it be useful in the future to have such a high resolution on such a small screen?
If I could be sure that all upcoming applications support DPI scaling, than I could imagine to live with that screen.
What about the 1600x900 screen? Is it as good as the full HD panel with regard to colors and brightness? What about the uneven lightning on that screen? As far as I understand from the other threads the screens are almost the same except the resolution.

I'm really thinking about returning this powerful and nice machine because of the tiny fonts caused by applications such as Skype which aren't scale properly according to the DPI settings of Windows 7. I would perhaps switch to the 1600x900 screen if this would be an option. Maybe someone of you guys can give me a hint on what I should do.

Let me hear your thoughts about that and the other cons I mentioned above. Many thanks in advance

 

I've been using both the Z9e (HD) and X9e (1600) and I have to say even with the font scaling adjustments, just in terms of everyday usability - I haven't really sweated the minute functional details / merits of each display yet - the 1600 display @ 100% is all people'll need or want, UNLESS you're doing a lot of media consumption on the move (where displaying full HD may be beneficial) - and even for 'young' people.

As for older, everyone around my age and over I've recommended the (1600) Z's to so far always has asked me about how to make things bigger because they can't see anything, so the wrinklies would probably be better off with 1366 - if it was offered.

For me, the Z9e @ 100% is definitely more useful in some situations - such as giant Excel manipulation, but as you said, I'd be uncomfortable doing it for any meaningful length of time - it's really something I'd like to do on a 17-inch. The effective dpi at 1920@100% is probably similar to some mobiles I have, as well as the UX's I used to have. And in those cases, you're glancing at info, not concentrating on it for any notable length of time - and I find that when you do with the Z9e, it results in eyestrain.

The option is nice to have though and personally I'd prefer to work with the Z9e @ 125% - some apps don't scale, but that doesn't bother me much as all the important ones for me do. I just don't have that option due to the fact that I need multiple machines and I can't get enough Z9e's for when I'm actually supposed to start working with these, so it's the 1600 X9e's for me.

 

I prefer using 100% dpi wherever possible, so I opted for the 1600 screen. Colour and brightness are fine, but not too impressed with the viewing angles though...

By the way Vogelbung, I thought the 'cat-bowl' avatar was funnier, do you have any others..? It is your cat..? lol

 

So for working purposes you would suggest the 1920@125% and this should be fine? I just increased it to 135% and it seems now almost perfect...except those applications which don't scale at all.
What about the screen quality of the 1600 screen compared to the 1920 screen is there a noticable difference?

 

when you are watching a 32" TV ... having full HD and HD ready doesn't really matter much.

hence, there should be not much (if any) differences @ a 13.1" screen

Note that 1600 x 900 is higher resolution than 720p

Hence, watching video, there should not be too much concerns regarding it.

.....

On the other hand, i believe that 1600 x 900 is more comfortable for the eye, compared to the full HD screen, which is kind of an overkill

i can sit 1 arm length away from the screen and type and read without any issue @ original resolution, quite comfortable actually.

I doubt that i will enjoy the same feeling if i'm using the full HD screen though

 

I've spent time with both flavors of screens in the new Z.

The 1600x900 was a bit brighter than the FHD. Imagine having one more adjustment up available (Fn+F6) than the FHD does.

I agree with you, the fonts are a bit small at 100%. The FHD's pixel density is the highest I've ever seen. I have a 24" LCD with the same resolution.

I've switched back and forth between 100% and 125% a few times. I'm leaning towards using 100% permanently right now. Doing this means I put my head closer to the machine than I am normally accustomed to. Unless you have super vision, I don't think the FHD is a good option for those looking to use the laptop on a docking station with a full sized keyboard. It would be too far away to read comfortably, at least it would be for me and my eyes.

The pixel density is a huge benefit for me. With the stuff I work on, extra screen real estate is a must. I've said this a few times in other threads; the FHD makes the laptop feel bigger than it is.

As for the 1600x900 screen, I think the colors and viewing angles are about the same. It's a great LCD, just with less room and larger default fonts. I'll see if I can get a picture of the FHD next to my 1st Gen Z with the 1600x900 so you can see 100% fonts on both. (yes, I've had one 1st gen Z and two 2nd gen machines)

I don't have the problem you described with uneven lighting. My screen is fine in this regard. I'm not sure what you mean by areaways.

Long story short, both screens are fantastic. If you need larger fonts, go with the 1600x900. If you need the most screen area available, FHD is the way to go, but only if you have decent vision and can keep the machine close to you.

 

I couldn't even contemplate full HD on a 13" screen...

 

I love the screen. I have always had excellent vision (20/12), and that serves me well here. But I have no issues with the font size.

 

Sorry for the quality of the pics, but here are some comparison shots.

The VPCZ1 (1920x1080) is on the left, a Z591 on the right (1600x900). Both machines were at max brightness and set to 100% DPI.



Hopefully you can see the difference in font sizes and available screen area.

 

seems to be a significant difference in font size...
i think 1600 x 900 will be more comfortable to work with

 

Thank you very much for the pictures...yes I think 1600x900 is a far better to work with, at least for a longer time. I already tried to set this resolution on the full HD screen here, but as expected it gets a bit blurry.

I really like the display...and I have also good eyesight. Mostly I will use the laptop right in front of me. At work I have a 22" external screen and at home I just ordered a 23" screen, so I guess I will use the screen mostly while travelling or during other non fixed positioned activities.

If I use Firefox at 100% I get very very tiny fonts in the browser, which is just not usable. All other programs I use are ok at 100%, as long as I'm not seriously working for more than 2 hours with it.

About the uneven lighting, I attached a picture I just made (DSC00707.jpg)

And another picture (DSC00700.jpg) is what I wanted to describe with areaway...ok it was the wrong word...maybe halo is more appropriate for this.
Look at the marked area...

Anyway I could live with these two things...I just need to figure out if I can live with the tiny fonts.

 

Wow, I think you may have a defective screen. I don't have either of those problems.

 

My European FullHD Z has the same problem:



But not that exaggerated

 

What is the problem you guys are looking for? I am at work and can't make out from my office comp.

 

uneven backlit for the screen

mine is the 1600 x 900 and as far as i can see, for mine, it look like a piece of white paper with no uneven backlit when @ 100% brightness...

but for the TS, i think his screen is definitely screwed up

 

Dunno. Is that picture what the OP is actually seeing? Because it's pretty hard actually to shoot a white screen as you see it to highlight backlight issues or even evenness, as I've found on trying to flog some of my monitors recently.

 

the picture looks like its bright at the center , at full brightness right?.
btw, you will get use to small fonts later, just like after im switching from 1280x800 to 1600x900.

Zoink: the one on right look better in color.. maybe just a camera. :/

 

I think the uneven lighting could be also due to the camera, right. The screen was at 70% brightness when I made the picture.
But it is still recognizable on a white screen without camera and also at full birghtness.

I used it the whole day at work without external screen at 100% with full HD and it was quite hard to concentrate after about 3 hours of programming with Visual Studio...so I'm really not sure if I get used to it. I still like the screen very much, but for such an expensive machine it should be also usable for longer work periods. I guess I will return it and change it against the 1600 screen.