vgn-z vs vpc-z screen, is it worth to upgrade?

I have a vgn-z 790 and plan to upgrade to a new vpc-Z or its replacement that is rumored to have a vpc-z screen. I love exceptional contrast and brightness as well as bold colors on the current vgn-z. I heard that vpc-z screen is more glossy and has less saturated colors, how big is the difference in daily usage?

 

I haven't used the VGN-Z... but I don't think I could live without the 1080P screen on the new Z

 

I'm leaning toward 1080p screen on my upgrade given that one can always increase DPI to avoid too small text and higher pixel density will improve contrast.

How easy it is to read outside in bright daylight on vpc-z?

 

I have different opinons though. To be honest the 1080p screen is nothing more than the toppings of a cake. It does add some flavor but doesn't really affect the cake as a whole. I'm using 768p (1366x768) on my Z now, though I do occasionally switch it to 900p if I'm doing a lot of web tasks. 1080p is really an overkill, but I *suppose* it will give better 1080p video playback quality, and as HDTV4me mentioned, better contrast due to the higher ppi.

 

Why do you downscale your resolution resulting in unsharp image and blurry fonts when you can use DPI scaling which allows you to have fonts big enough for comfortable reading while having super sharp image all the time?!

 

I have never understood the argument of not wanting the highest resolution

I'd take a 2560x1600 13" screen if they made one

 

Why? I'm not being rude or even disagreeing, one significant attraction for me of the new Z or the SA will be the FHD, just curious.

What advantages do you find with the xtra-high def? Are they limited to only certain work applications?

 

After reading this forum religiously for the last 6 months, I can safely say that it seems torn half and half in terms of preference for the 1600X900 screen or the 1900X1080 screen.

I highly doubt there's that much of a difference with the 1080 screen when watching a movie. What it does offer, though, is more screen real estate. It allows me to have windows side by side and still be able to see all of the font properly. It allows me to edit images and work in Illustrator much more effectively with the higher pixel density. That's just the application that I use my FHD screen for. If the 900 works fine for you now, and you have to scale down, then there's no point in your case to get the 1080.

 

It is pretty obvious, on the +++ high def screen you can put many things ! Everything written even small is readable because it is so precise, so sharp, that even the smallest letters can be read.

If you find the letters too small and start being tired, in 2 clicks you can use 125% size letters which take you back to the size of a 1600x900 screen, but the letters are very well defined.

For gaming you can use 1366x768 and since the screen is small you almost do not notice the difference on gaming full screen.

Now, to give an example, on Office/Excel 2007 i can not get all the menus on top of the screen if i use 125% letter size (i guess it is what a 1600x900 would show), while on 100% size and full HD resolution i have all menus on the top of the screen and can even devide screen into 2 parts, like one document on the half screen left, and one right side and still be able to access all menus easily...

IT IS JUST SOOOOO NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICE

 

I second that too, even though i love full HD for my personnal taste and use, the 1600x900 is already a very nice screen.

However IF full HD is available i cannot see any valid argue to go for the 1600x900 screen, and i agree with cowboy on that point too Cause anything you can do with a 900p screen can be done with the 1080p. The opposite is not true.

 

Oh what a waste... Want to trade screens?