Z Resolution: Which do you prefer?

Especially curious in your response if you have seen both. (No Sony store, not yet at BestBuy - I can't see in person prior to purchase.)

 

Here the two resolutions side-by-side:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=3908362&postcount=3209

Stefan

 

Here you go side by side 1600 vs. 1366:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=3897486&postcount=3097
BR
Miki

 

main argument for this thing is wxga++, there is only the x300/301 with an even resolution (a bit "tighter).

 

I may be tempted to vote for 1600*900, but I once sold a TZ because the pixels were too small for me.

 

And the screen was also too small (11.1")

BR
Miki

 

I've been using both side by side for three days now (the z591 is for me, and I'm clean installing the z550 for my father), and I have to say, I don't really think its that big of a difference.

The funny part is, I kind of tend to prefer whichever I'm working on at the moment. But, just to give as much advice as I can, here are my totally biased, unscientific opinions about both screens after 2 days of constant use of both:

A. The color reproduction on both is, as far as I'm concerned, identical. The screen looks just as beautiful on one as it does the other.

B. When I'm sitting down at a table, or working in any kind of normal position - the screen size on the 1600x900 is not in any way too small - and is amazingly crisp. Laying with it on a couch, however, with it sitting on my lap just below my waste line, I can see everything fine, but it is a little bit more strained and takes a few extra seconds to read (and I'm 26 with what I would call just normal vision).

C. Both screens have almost identical light leak on the top and bottom, which is to say not horrible, but not great - I've seen both much better and much worse. I haven't noticed it in anything I've been doing; but if your a perfectionist, you'll notice it during boot (at least with my two machines).

D. The extra "area" on the 1600x900 does come in handy. For instance, its a few extra lines of code I can see while I'm working, and I can keep an entire IM Buddy list open next to my work that I couldn't on the 1366x768.

E. PERSONALLY, I notice the diagonal line problem significantly more on the 1600x900 resolution than I do the 1366x768 model. Now, a few caveats here. I tend to have VERY sensitive eyes to such things (for example, on old CRT monitors, I can't work with the resolution any less than 70 or so because my eyes will actually burn and I feel the flashing). That said, while I see the diagonal lines whenever there is ANY movement on the screen (or I move at all), I got used to it very quickly. I was very fearful at first just because of how well I saw them, but within a day of use, I still see them but it just doesn't bother me?

F. For those of you that are considering getting the 1600x900 and simply scaling down when you need - Note that for some reason, at least using the supplied drivers, it isn't possible to scale down to a smaller 16:9 resolution. So far neither Windows, nor any of the games (I've tried of a few of the Orange Box games) will support this. So, at least in my experience thus far, 1600x900 is the ONLY resolution you will be able to use (I don't consider the 4:3 resolutions a serious option).

G. Both screens were picked up out of the box in their native resolutions in Linux, and the scaling/anti aliasing there makes everything easier to read on both models - but the 1600x900 probably wins slightly here.

H. I'm coming from a 12" Dell 700m and honestly both screens felt much larger than an additional inch.

So here's is my sorta-summary:

I think if you take the two, and place them side by side - most people just briefly looking at them would likely think the 1600x900 looks slightly better. However, I think if you owned one or the other (regardless of which one), you would be perfectly happy with it and think the screen is awesome. For example, when they were side by side, I was happy I chose the 1600. But then I found myself feeling a bit more comfortable using the 1366 resolution model when I just needed to look something up. I think if your going to game, take into account that the higher resolution might be all thats available - and thus make sure your game can handle it.

If I had to make my purchase again? Honestly I would probably purchase the 1600 again but only because if I had the lower resolution every time I wanted to look at more than one thing on the screen, I would think, "Would this have been better had I bought the higher resolution?" Honestly though, thats just a personality defect of mine, and I would likely be just as happy using the lower resolution (and could have saved a pretty penny too!).

Ps. I still haven't voted above, because even after two days of constant use on both, I can't say one is significantly better than the other - all things considered.

 

Thanks for the write up jpoe. I must agree.

Although I prefer the 1366 for my personal needs, I don't think that 12% +/- in resolution is that big of a deal unless your eyesight isn't very good.

 

edited. created another thread for this.

 

Having used and owned the 1600x900, I found it unusable, much like 1366x768 is too small on the TZ. It's why I've ordered a 1366x768 Z from Japan with the RAID0 SSD.

 

Just got my 1366... OMG thank God I didn't get the 1600.

 

jpoe - Great help, thank you such much for writing all of that up. The decision seems harder when you don't need any of the premium options (blu-ray, ssd), so it becomes $200 more for extra vram + resolution. I'll keep the sensitivity to the lines in mind ... I can be sensitive to things like that, so who knows. (We just switched our TVs to flat panel hd, 32" and 52" and my poor eyes are having a hard time adjusting, LOL.)

I just found a nice break for myself ... BestBuy now carries the Z, in the 1366x768, but at least if they have one here I can finally SEE one. If it seems perfectly good to a little big, I may go 1600x900 because I'd probably be able to handle it, and I do code + use spreadsheets. If it seems like it's at all small, I'll stick with it and probably adjust to it fine without feeling it's tiny. I am 23 w/ good eyesight, but you still worry about feeling strained with it, given I want to use it frequently and for the next few years.

I am keeping my fingers crossed BestBuy still has a TZ so I can compare that resolution to the Z ... but it seems to be off their website, so ... Either way, I'm excited to finally see one. I've been dying to really get a better idea of this laptop. And while this forum has been an insanely huge help, nothing beats some hands on time. I'm hoping next week to probably order one to last me the next few years ... as long as the Dell e4300 price all said and done doesn't suddenly blow this out of the water.

 

y d u want 1366 instead of 1600?

 

I don't want to start scaling to be able to read comfortably from a couple feet away.

 

Just as a remark;

What many people (understandably) forget is that text of for example 2.5 millimeters high, does look much better and much more readable on a screen with a higher pixeldensity. I think that everyone who sees the 1600x900 screen is actually positively surprised by the readability of the text. I'm not saying that everyone will like the 1600x900, or that no-one will have difficulties reading from the screen. What I do mean to say is that; If you're relatively seriously doubting between the 1366x768 and the 1600x900, probably the 1600x900 is your best choice.

 

I have a (probably a stupid) question. When you say it looks better and is more readable ... does this mean the text isn't going to look super thin? For example, on my home computer, if I change the resolution to be larger the text becomes super duper thin, therefore looking much lighter as well. Even though the size seems OK, it is suddenly harder to read. Is this what is noticeable better about the 16x9 Z?

 

lol, your analogy is correct if the physical size of the output of both monitor is the same (meaning, if you put a ruler and measure, letters from both monitors are physically the same). However, in reality, on the 1600x900, the letter will be displayed smaller relatively compared to the 1366x768. That's why it's better to have 1600x900 to watch movie than for reading text.

 

Ive been playing aournd with this. If you setup the visual for performance, the text is way too thin and small on my 1600x900 screen - I cannot tolerate it. but if you setup the Vista for visual, the fonts are larger but more importantly, the fonts are crystal clear and easy to read..

I am totally happy with the 1600x900. I have the versatility to shift between 120dpi and 96. I use Excel a lot and need the columns and lines and also use Visio where the desktop space is great. Going back and forth with resolution for what I'm doing is great.

 

what do you mean by "setup the Vista for visual"? Is that just changing the font size to 120 from 96? or are there any other options to change to optimze?

 

Well, if anyone sees that BestBuy now has it ... don't get too excited!

I showed up and they not only don't have it (despite bestbuy.com showing I can order and pick up at this store when I enter the location) ... they also no longer have the TZ.

Whine. x10. I was hoping I'd finally have an idea for myself which resolution to go for.

I might go to sonystyle.com and verify that even cto models can be returned no hassle, and if so maybe I'll try the 1600x900 out. I kinda agree with the poster about the what-if factor.

 

No, I guess you don't understand what I mean, cause I'm fully correct just the way I described it

What I mean is that if you for instance look at the links on the left side of the forum.notebookreview.com-pages (e.g. under 'Latest Laptop Discussion'), that you might think; "Ok, that's probably about the size normal text will look like on the 1600x900Z." However, my point is, text of that same absolute size, will look much better on the Z.

 

It's a Performance setting. Right-click My Computer->Properties and click Advanced. Go to Performance Settings and you can adjust for best appearance or best performance.

I have to agree. Best performance does make the text a bit too thin. Best appearance is perfect for 1600x900 and I can read text perfectly from 2 to 3 ft away. Adjusting the DPI kinda cuts off some text for certain programs and webpages so I just leave that setting alone.

If you want to see what 1600x900 seems like on your screen, follow my tutorial here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=297550

 

I finally got a chance to play with 1600*900 Z today, I think it would be fine to me.

 

1600x900 makes the words too small on z, its hard to work with it for long time. so i prefer 1366x768

 

i've been thinking about this a lot lately.. after using the Z for 3 weeks (the Z590) i am totally comfortable with it.

but now that i am testing out the SR, it left me in doubt whether i should get a the lower end version, as it is a LOT easier to read the text.

 

I ended up returning my Z590 for the standard resolution.

I found that I had to always zoom in to make text readable. I don't watch movies or do anything else often enough to make the higher resolution worth the extra money.

 

I'm glad Sony produce both resolutions for this.

If it were my primary machine, I'm pretty sure I'd need the lower res to comfortably work with text for hours at a time... However, for use as a secondary/mobile Photoshop machine, the higher res is fantastically useful.

In the end I voted for the higher res because even if this were my only PC, I just couldn't live without the extra real estate of the higher res now that I have used it and I would thus use it docked to a monitor if it were my main workstation.

 

yeah, im using the SR and browsing through the web is kind of painful, it does require the screen to be fully maximized...

 

i voted for 1366 but only because i own it and it works fine for me.

if price were no consideration, i probably would have gone with 1600