So, my dad's company just bought a few new Dell laptops. I have not seen them but they sound nice. But there's a problem.

The laptops have 15" "widescreen" LCDs. Their resolution is 1920x1200. I wasn't aware that LCDs that small had resolutions that high. That seems pretty ridiculous to me. I don't know any business people who have good enough vision for a resolution like that. My dad certainly doesn't.

So, I plan on seeing what I can do to adjust the Windows environment to get around this problem. Any tips/pointers on what I can do? I don't really want to turn on the "accessibility" options, since those make things a bit too large, but I want to adjust things so that they are suitably visible. This is in WinXP Pro.

And why would they make the resolution like this? Why not use a lower resolution with the same aspect ratio? It doesn't make any sense to me. The 23" LCD monitor they were looking at for their desktop publishing station has the same native resolution. That seems a bit absurd.

People like me want a 1600x1200 laptop minimum. I'm disappointed the Powerbook's resolution is so low. They make them that way for people like me, who want 9 80x24 xterms.

Yeah, if they're having problems you can have them trade those 15" 1920x1200's with my 14" 1280x1024 Dell D600's even steven.

There is no great way around it. Non-native resolutions look like crap on LCD's. Set the font sizes & icon sizes up and deal with it or deal with fuzzy a somewhat fuzzy / jaggy looking 1280x1024 (or something thereabout).

-Zeke

When I bought my D600 recently I opted for the 1024x768 14 inch screen. I can't cope with higher that that res on a 14 inch screen, even on an LCD. I reckon you need perfect vision to manage more than 1024x768 at 14 inches.

I have other issues with my Dell screen. It has a strange interlace effect when I blink or chew, which I have never seen on an LCD TFT screen before. Anyone else seen that ?

Learn how to change font sizes, it's really not that dificult. There's a windows setting to tell XP what dpi your monitor is, which is helpfull. Occasionally useless websites will somehow hard code their font size, but a quick trip to the IE/Mozilla view menu can change the font size for that window.

Once you get used to a high res LCD you'll never go back. I laugh at the widescreen 17" emachines laptops every time I go into best buy or circuit city.

Matthew

I laugh at the widescreen 17" emachines laptops every time I go into best buy or circuit city.

Why? At first glance, they seem pretty nice (for the price). I didn't really play with it though. Is it the resolution?

Once you get used to a high res LCD you'll never go back.

Not if you're a businessman in his 50's with glasses. If a typical computer user like the people in my dad's office usually use their computers at resolutions of no more than 1000xwhatever (on 17 and 19 inch monitors), there's no way they'll be doing 1920x1600 on a 15".

Frankly I'm amazed that nobody is suprised about this. I find it incredible that this is what Dell would sell to a business. These laptops have less desktop surface area than a regular 15" screen, yet the resolution is the same as the Samsung 21" LCDs. This makes no sense to me.

What model is it ? I find it hard to believe since they can't sell a 19" desktop lcd that does 1600X1200

The Inspiron 8600 has:

15.4 inch Wide-Aspect UltraSharpTM TFT Active Matrix displays in a choice of WXGA (1280x800), WSXGA+ (1680x1050), or WUXGA (1920x1200)

I'm not sure what the complaint was. I'm sure that your father's business (yes, I know I'm responding to two different people) specifically ordered the more expensive option. It's not like Dell gave it to them for free. There's a $150 premium on the highest resolution display from the lowest (assuming that model; I'm sure that other models with the same options have similar price discrepancies). If they made an uninformed decision, I'm sorry, but that's hardly Dell's fault. They don't have the optometry records of your father's business colleagues to suggest that that might not be the option they want. Personally, I'd be offended if I ordered something and was told that that's not what I wanted. Perhaps in the future you could advise them on their purchases.

Listen, get them docking stations, set their lovely built in screens down to the lowest supported resolution and get them 19" 1280x1024 flat screens (~$700, I got one for my 88 year old grandma - yeah she uses a PC regularly - she's too cool) and a copy of Pivot Pro so they can put them in portrait mode for reading the WSJ or NYT. That way they only need to look at the built in screens when on the road.

If they're not too old, or still brand new(the machines that is, not the businessmen) Dell might help you out by installing the lower res screens instead, so long as you asked nicely and didn't ask for any money back.

-Zeke

Thanks for doing the research, Bitt. Looks like someone doesn't listen to me (my dad). I had explained how LCD screens worked to him before, and the first thing he said when we started talking about the laptops on the phone was "well, you're right about LCD monitors." Um...yeah

I'll see if they can replace the laptops. That seems like the best course of action right now. I won't blame Dell, now that I have that information. Some people want resolutions like that, so I give them credit for having the option. I was under the impression that my father's company had a a representative at Dell, but I'm not sure.

Bitt, when you looked it up, did you see any other differences between the models, or was the screen type an independant selection? Either way, I can definitely see my dad going for the more expensive model

I see that at companies all the time especially in executive areas. They will buy whatever the top of the line model is and not worry about if it fits their needs or not. I also see the inverse where they buy the cheapest and it doesn't fulfill their needs.

To be fair, my dad isn't clueless about these things. He's up on technology and is the reason I'm such a gadget freak. Much of the time he simply lets his love of new [expensive] toys get in the way of the best research This is why when I worked there as a lowly office temp, I was the one who researched and recommended their new scanner, photo scanner, plasma television (as a giveaway prize), and previous desktop publishing monitor.

Well, I'll be working there briefly this summer, when they order new computers for the office I'll see what input I get then

Learn how to change font sizes, it's really not that dificult.

It is not just font sizes that are the problem for people with non-perfect vision at high res on 14/15 inch screens. It is also things like toolbar buttons and other graphical elements, which will not magically get bigger by tweaking DPI settings.

Being a programmer who likes to have a double row of task bar buttons I would love my laptop to have more vertical screen resolution. It would be nice not to be programming through a letter box view on my code, but I my eyes can't cope with hi-res on a 14/15 inch screen.

I think it might be time for me to invest in a nice 21 inch CRT monitor, I've been living in the dark ages at 1024x768 for far too long. I would live to get a 19 inch LCD instead, but that probably won't happen because of the issues with colour reproduction, as I'll be retouching photos on it as well. The idea of a dual 21 inch CRT and 19 inch LCD appeals though...

I think it might be time for me to invest in a nice 21 inch CRT monitor, I've been living in the dark ages at 1024x768 for far too long.

I sometimes wander what I'll do when my eyes start to go. I'm currently running at 1600x1200 on a 19" CRT monitor. My secondary monitor is 1280x1024 on a 17" CRT monitor. I don't think I could cope with less screen real estate, and 21" CRTs are still a little too expensive.

21" CRTs are still a little too expensive.

You can get a reasonably tidy Iiyama trinitron one for about 400 quid -- it wouldn't surprise me if your 17in and 19in were both more than that when you bought them...

Peter

I suspect when our generation reaches our sixties we'll need to be sitting in front of 50 inch screens just to get 1024x768...

...unless they have found some way to tap into our optic nerves by then !

Oops. I meant that 21" LCDs (to get the resolution I want) are too expensive.

Oops. I meant that 21" LCDs (to get the resolution I want) are too expensive.

Mmm, no argument there. Even once you've decided you can't justify those 3840x2400 ones for five grand, the 2048x1536 ones are still about three grand.

Peter

Bitt, when you looked it up, did you see any other differences between the models, or was the screen type an independant selection?

I just found the first 15" (15.4", really) widescreen laptop in the small business section, so I don't know that that's the exact model your dad has. But, on that one, the screen selection was a top-level option. That is, you had to choose that, CPU and something else (maybe office suite?) before doing the real customization. I doubt that there were further differences, but I don't know. Just go over to dell.com and see. It should be easy to find.

If your Dad does have a Dell rep, then maybe you ought to blame him.

Even once you've decided you can't justify those 3840x2400 ones for five grand, the 2048x1536 ones are still about three grand.

Ah, but conversely, once you have justified the 2048x1536 ones the 3840x2400 are an easy next step up...

With 3840x2400 I could actually view my landscape photos fullscreen at 100%, I'd still need a bigger screen to view the portrait ones though

Maybe you could find one that rotates.

It isn't keeping me awake a night, given that I can't afford it anway...

I've got a 1600x1200 15" LCD in my Dell and I think it's great. Everything is extremely sharp and it's excellent for programming as you can fit way more onto the screen. When I get a new laptop I'll be getting a minimum of 1600x1200 at least.

You do need to bump up the screen DPI value in Windows though so the fonts will look right. Only problem is that applications don't usually resize properly because of the increased font sizes but you learn to live with that.

I sometimes wander what I'll do when my eyes start to go.

By then, hopefully, user interfaces will be programmed in terms of points, milimeters, or other real-world units rather than pixels. Apple will probably have an easier time of this with the whole PDF architecture and all that. Microsoft and the X Window System will have a harder time, but it's going to have to happen.

Meanwhile, Mozilla turns out to be able to deal with configurable screen resolutions. I've configured it properly on my laptop and desktop, and now I find myself constantly needing to manually resize the screen fonts (control-+) as they always show up on screen too small (i.e., web sites have been assuming a lower pixel density than my screen). This is probably a harbinger of problems to come.

I've got a 1600x1200 15" LCD in my Dell and I think it's great

Well, that's definitely smaller than most people can stand, so I'm impressed with that! But I will point out that a 15" "widescreen" is nearly an inch shorter vertically. So imagine putting 1200 pixels in an inch less space. That's why it's not suitable for my dad. Of course, he's got a 19" CRT at home and keeps it somewhere between 1024 and 1280.

Personally, I have a 19" CRT that I keep at 1600x1200. I could go slightly larger, but my monitor doesn't support it. I will hopefully be getting the hand-me-down monitor from my dad's work, the widescreen Sony I found for them 3 years ago. I think that can do slightly better. At least I'll be able to do 1900x1600 at higher than 70Hz (my limit right now on 1600x1200).

Does anyone here still prefer CRTs to LCDs, like I do? It's just that I find myself changing resolutions pretty often, and I like the flexibility. That and the other issues just don't make them as attractive to me. I'm still holding out for that beautiful Sony. Mmmm.

>So imagine putting 1200 pixels in an inch less space.

Stop it.. you're making me drool in antici...

Nope. The higher the DPI the better! Have you actually tried the laptop? The screens are beautiful in my opinion. I've not had too much trouble with games wanting lower resolution as 800x600 is half 1600x1200 so there aren't any artifacts from the scaling.

I prefer LCDs to CRTs and it's all I've got now. The only CRT I use on any semi regular basis is the one at my parents house but I'm hardly ever there and I usually have my laptop with me anyway.

Razor sharp images, no flickering at all, low power consumption i.e. won't be a space heater and light weight. What else do you want?

Does anyone here still prefer CRTs to LCDs, like I do?

I couldn't move entirely to LCDs because of the single problem of colour reproduction when you are sitting off centre. You only have to be slumped in your chair slightly before the colour/contrast goes too far off. So I have to have a CRT to use if I want to retouch photos and prepare them for printing.

When I get round to it my desktop machine is going to have both, I need to find a LCD and CRT with similar physical screen sizes.

Hmm. Okay, you've hit one of the major flaws in LCDs. Most consumer level LCDs don't actually do 24 bit colour. The IBM 1600x1200 one I've got in this Dell actually only does 6 bits per channel. You have to go for more expensive ones before they'll do a full 8 bits per channel.