Which Z series Resolution?

I'm planning on buying the z series laptop but I'm not sure which one is better to buy.

Should I be buying the z540 or z590.
The main difference from what I understand is one is 1366 x 768 and the other is 1600 x 900, one has blu-ray and the other doesn't, one has 256MB graphics card and the other has 128MB.

Which model would be better to get? Is there going to be a huge difference between the 1366 x 768 and 1600 x 900 in resolution?
How about the graphics?

I don't need blu-ray so I'm not concerned about that.

Any input would be appreciate it.
Thanks guys.

 

I went for the max. With the 1600x900 you can always reduce it / tinker DPI scaling = make it like the other one, but you cant in retrospect increase the lower res into higher

Although 128mb vs 256mb on the 9300m is not significant, it STILL is a bit more helpful in games and 3d that utilize the cache.. I wanted the most for the amount I am shelling out and the CPU + GPU are essentially non-user upgradeable so I went for the highest in this regard

 

using it mostly to read text for long period go for the 1366 x 768

if mostly movies/games I'd get the 1600 x 900.

imo

 

I opted for the 1366 as the DPI matches that of most external monitors, I use the laptop for tool pallets and various information with an external (or two!).

Regarding the MB size and gaming, the increased VRAM will help with larger resolutions and in some gaming situations, but the price difference could put you well on your way to a phenomenal gaming desktop. AFAIK, either CTO can be configured with Blu-ray, but neither can actually display the full resolution, which restricts that upgrade for storage purposes or using the HDMI to your larger HD Television.

 

I like my 1600x900 and use the control wheel to scale the text and icons...

I do Excel and Visio so I need the desktop space - great for zooming.

 

I mainly use the computer for surfing, office, SQL, Remote Access, some movie watching when I travel and that's about it.
So I guess the 1366 x 768 would be better for me???!!!

 

Not necessarily. It depends on what you prefer. I prefer to have as much screen 'real estate' as possible, even when surfing. I'd go for 1600*900.

 

Yea I wouldn't mind that either but the thing is the 1600x900 the way I want it is a little bit out of my budget.
I wanted to buy the z-series for $2500 with tax but the 1600x900 comes to about $2800 or more with tax.

I want to get 2.53 Mhz, 4GB HDD, Vista Business, DVDRW+/-, etc.

I'm wondering if I get the 1600x900 and reduce the processor to 2.4Mhz will it make a difference?

 

2.4Ghz will be fine. No one will even notice the difference without using a stopwatch or benchmark tool.

 

But what about the difference in P8600 and P9500?

Is there pictures of the 1366 x 768 and 1600 x 900 resolutions side by side?

 

Take a look at this website.

http://kunkoku.livedoor.biz/archives/51484778.html

You can click on the pictures of the screens for the full size picture.

 

Most people won't see a difference in P8600 vs P9500 unless you do encoding, simulations and other tasks that require the CPU to work a lot. If you game, you won't see much of an increase in FPS but it will certainly help maintain FPS in my experience i.e. your minimum FPS increases

 

Well I'm not gonna be using it for gaming but I do want to get something that will last me about 2-3 years.
I guess I should go with the 1600 x 900 because I can always lessen the resolution if I don't like it.
But I'm not sure if I should go with the 2.4 or the 2.53!!

 

2.4Ghz is the sweet spot of price/performance/power consumption in my opinion.

And I noticed John Ratsey agrees with me: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=292783

 

So when do you notice the difference then?
Is it when it reaches 3Mhz?

 

screen real estate is great ... provided you can handle the smaller font size ... if you're using your notebooks screen for 'long' periods of time that is something to consider imo ...

i'm going by the feedback from my staff ... they use excel, word, pp etc the only time I hear complaints is when they break, or weigh too much or the font is too small ... we increase the DPI settings to accomodate but it's not as good as viewing in its' original resolution.

but if you like more screen real estate and can handle the smaller font (for long periods of time -that's the catch), then get a higher resultion, you'll love it for photos/movies etc.

 

that bings me to another question ... I've read here on the forums that with Vista changing the DPI settings is more foregiving ... meaning that the font looks good in other that its native resolution.

The only machine we have here are Latitudes and Thinkpads with the higher resolution, running Vista yes, but when I change the DPI settins the font is fuzzy ... not a fault of Vista I just don't like the Latitude/Thinkpad screens the non LED, non glossy I'm referring too...

Because if you can achieve a 'very clear' font when switching to a lower resolution then I'd get the 1600x900 then I'd buy that one myself.

Can anyone confirm this?

 

Good point. I wish there was a way for me to actually see how the 1600 x 900 looks. It's not at the stores in Canada so I can't check it out.

 

The PPI is similar to the TZ. They will probably have the TZ in stores.

 

yea, i'm in Canada too, you'll have a hard time finding any brand in a store like Future Shop or Best Buy with notebooks in stock with 1600 x 900 res.

the resolution has been my hardest decsion, I know we have a 15" Dell here with a high resolution and I don't like the font size at all ... we resized it via DPI but then it's very fuzzy ...

i'd like to buy the 1600 x 900 resolution personally, but I need to be convinced the font look perfect when resized to run at 1366 x 768 using Vista's DPI settings.

PhilFlow what's your opinion / experience resizing the font on a Sony 13" - how good does it look?

 

I really like the 1600x900. I use the scroll button on the mouse with the ctrl key and get the exact size I want and then return it to the small size to see the whole picture. It is very clear all the way up and down. I also like the side by side windows where you can get two or three great screens in one view. just my opinion - btw I wear reading glassed but don't need then for this screen - the brightness is usally turned down...one or two notches.

For this size and weight, I wouldn't need to go to the 12" notebooks. Maybe next refresh 3yrs from now?

 

So the font isn't that small? When you go down to 1366 x 768 does the font change and look all weird or is it pretty clear?

 

I can't say how it would resize on the sony screen ...

... we have a Dell D820 here, my staff runs it at 120 DPI (125% of normal font) and the font does look odd and fuzzy - imo

I'm typing on an LG P300 at 1200 x 800 and I love it ... my LG is getting scooped up by my wife the moment the Z arrives. (the Z is going to have to be a hell of a machine to beat the LG imo can't wait to compare them side by side ... not the spec's rather how does each one handle and feel with daily use)

my two questions about screen resolution are:

1. How does the Z with 1600 x 900 font look when you resize to 1366 x 768? Does it look as good as a Z that comes with the native 1366 x 768?

2. HDMI connecting to big screen TV - I'll do that on occassion to view word files, do some designing, a movie or two ...

Whether the Z's native resolution is 1366 x 786 or a 1600 x 900 does it make a difference when viewing on a larger screen, larger being 37" to 65" TV.

Thanks.

 

1. It will not look good. Run your LG P300 at 1024*768 and you'll get an idea.

2. It makes no difference. Both are able to play 1080p smooth.

 

Thanks, Phil.

That helps for me I think I'll stick with the Z570 I have on order, the larger font in its native res works best for me.

 

The 1600x900 screen is really crystal clear... The only thing that I notice when scaling or resizing is the proportion. but the text is very clear..

I really think that if you're very particular on the screen, you should go see one in person. I got the 1600x900 without seeing it and am very happy with ith. no eye strain but I also got the docking station with a 24inch monitor at home. I got this notebook strictly for the road...light, powerfull and maximun screen for the working environment - no games, not too many movies.

Like the advertisement says - great for the business person.

 

A 13.1" screen with a 1600 x 900 screen resolution would show the same font size as a 15.4" notebook with 1600 x 900 resolution - right?

 

Yes and no. What do you understand under 'font size'? Absolute or in pixels?

See it like this; a 1600x900 screen implies that the screen consists of 1600 small lights (or pixels) in the horizontal direction, and 900 lights in the vertical direction. (Hence in total the screen has 1600x900=1,440,000 'small lights'!). Obviously, if those 1,440,000 lights are divided over a larger screen (like a 15,4" screen), each light is somewhat larger than if those lights all are fit in a smaller (13,1") screen. On both the 13,1" and the 15,4" screen a certain word would -standardly- have the same height and width in pixels. However, because the size of the pixels differs, the size of the text itself differs as well.

 

You would see the same amount of information on both screens (less information with lower resolution) but it will of course look smaller on the Z due to its smaller screen.

The fonts would be the same size on both screen proportionally but will look larger on the 15" screen because it is physically bigger in size.

 

So I still don't know which is better to get? 1366 x 768 or 1600 x 900?!

 

If you intend to use the laptop's screen as your only monitor, I'd suggest the 1600x900. Keep in mind it will have a smaller pixel pitch, so the size of text and other items you are probably used to on your current computers will appear much smaller on the 1600x900.

If you also intend to do any sort of 3D work or play, the 9300 will already be struggling at 1366x768 and the higher resolution will cause a slide show on any large DCC file or modern game.

 

I don't know if this is true, but the 1600x900 screen will draw more power hence reducing battery life. I also heard unconfirmed reports that it is also dimmer than the 1366x768 screen.

Just something to think about....

 

Well, the 1600x900 is pretty darn bright at full brightness. And while I have nothing to compare it to, it doesn't seem to draw any more power. Battery life so far is reasonable.

 

The font size isn't too small is it?
I don't wear glasses, my eye site is close to 20/20.
Currently I'm using 1280 x 1024.

More people are leaning towards 1600 x 900. I guess that's what I should go for!!!???

 

Get the 1600x900 Resolution. DPI Scale warks perfect, you can make the Textsize of your Browser bigger and you can change the Resolution to 1280x768 which dont looks weired, only a little bit, but you can game and wark perfect
I'm very happy with my 1600x900 resolution :>

 

Thanks guys. I think I'm gonna stick to 1600 x 900 considering majority say that's the better one.

 

I'm coming back to this thread again because now some people are saying that the 1600 x 900 is too small.
Can anyone post an image of the font size? So we can see what it looks like?

 

I won't pay 2200$ to start scaling. And once you start scaling, the advantage of more workspace is lost. Not for me.

 

This might sound dumb but I'm not sure what you mean by scaling? What does scaling do?

 

Make the text bigger.

 

Again, the 1600x900 is a nice option if you have no intention of using an external monitor. I find the 13" LCD too small for any serious work even with the 1600x900. The 1366x768 is also has a larger pixel pitch, meaning the physical size of text / images / GUI elements will appear to match the size of them on an external monitor.

As far as brightness goes, they are both LED back-lit so there really shouldn't be much a difference. The 1600x900 really only becomes to small if you sit far back from your laptop (in the case of a dock and keyboard)... and in that case its too small of a panel with any resolution.

 

You may want to see my experiences with 1600x900 in this thread:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=294632

I would recommend against 1600x900.

 

Yea I read your post and that made me change my mind about 1600 x 900 but I haven't heard anything about the 1366 x 768, so that's why I'm asking.

 

What exactly are you asking about the 1366x768 then? It is tack sharp, and I have NO banding / pixel / bleeding issues whatsoever. Sometimes I wish I had more real estate when outside the office with it, but thats probably due to the fact I'm accustomed to working on 3x 1680x1050 and 2560x1600 resolution monitors.