Which is the minimum resolution allowed on a WSXGA+ display?

Long time ago I made photos of my UXGA 1600x1200 LCD showing it at other resolutions. Still "stickied" atop this forum, although for a while the pictures were lost and now it's back again. This goes to an old slideshow page.

http://webpages.charter.net/omniverse/various/uxga_lcd/

Admittedly, it's difficult to capture the true feel of the visual impact the resolution changes make. I don't think the newer notebook LCDs are very different, having changed my WXGA+ 1440x900 to other resolutions to see how that looks.

To me, it never is really bad to change resolution, but I wouldn't use it that way unless forced to. The softness is unavoidable. I'm not even sure anyone would like it if they hadn't seen the original "native" resolution, since it takes on a very CRT display appearance (only smoother). Only that it can be 'usable' if must be done.

When choosing a screen size you should always try for the best fit to what you need and not change it in the software later.

You asked about Truelife (glossy) vs. antiglare... Yes, the reflection of glossy can be a potential annoyance in bright environments (windows and lights directly behind you) but antiglare has its own downside, being duller/softer (although slightly) with less usable viewing angles.

The choice all comes down to personal preference, which is why it's a good idea to get a look at the different displays in person. For me I think the glossy is better since I don't have to deal with reflections where I use it. And reflections are only more an issue if a dark screen is being looked at, not when bright screen is showing. Again, any lighting not directly behind (or illuminating your face/shirt) doesn't affect the LCD itself.

Hope that helps with the decision.

The high resolution can be some trouble. Not everything can be increased in size to compensate. However, I'm almost 50 years old and adjusted well to the 1600x1200 screen I used 4 years before getting this new one with 1440x900. Got to say this medium resolution is a sweet spot.

About the brightness... I'm replying from a public library wireless hotspot and first time I've used the new notebook outdoors. It takes full brightness setting to see it good enough, and it's overcast sky around 3:30pm. local time. The difference from being indoors is vast. Meaning, the brighter the better. I think glossy usually wins out in this case, but due to unavoidable sky reflection it isn't great-- but is usable.

Only reason I never liked the idea of lower resolutions is because I work with photos and graphics a lot, so the more screen space the better. Doesn't apply to DVD movies. Not sure about HD DVD but likely not much of a factor either until dropping below 1280x800.

Wouldn't surprise me if people using 1280x800 wide screens or even 1024x768 4:3 ratio screen get along fine.

Back to the notion of changing icons and text larger... that used to be a big problem. Words would fall off message boxes and such. I don't know yet if that's been improved upon but any older programs or utilities never seem to cope.

Anyone else have suggestions? My viewpoint is limited, but all this said is what I know.

Well, i can't choose that scrren (WXGA+). Ok, maybe I can ask... How big was your screen with the 1600 resolution? I wonder because you are telling me that it was too difficult to see... I understand perfectly what you say about outdoors. i had experienced it once. I just wonder if indoor the glossy is just "cool" or has got some precise advantage, as in this moment I write in a not glossy and it looks pretty good. And I tryied two not glossy, one 14" and one, this one, which looks like a 19. Both looks pretty good... In the 14" I saw a movie pretty well. About changing dimension of text and icons, well, I have experienced no problem when i do it from the "display" options, in "configurations7advanced". While yes, it was a problem when I did it more invasively through the "aspect" window. Well, I think I will go in a shop and look for a 1280x800 15.4" and ten a 1680x1050. To see..

My Inspiron 8200 is 15", 4:3 aspect ratio, 1600x1200. The 8000 I had before that was a 14" and also 1600x1200. I dealt with the tiny icons and text best I could. I didn't need to adjust everything larger on the 15" screen as much as the 14" but every now and then something would get squeezed out of a message box so I couldn't read it all.

Not really a huge problem since if I had to I could reset to defaults and just read tiny stuff. Sounds worse than it is, I guess.

My 17" LCD for the desktop computer is also 1600x1200, and is far better than the two older notebooks. That's probably typical of notebook LCDs to be worse than standalone LCDs. But that 17" really helps the eyes, too.

Anyway, like I was saying before, my eyes are almost 50 years old now and I wear eyeglasses (and have astigmatism!) so most people could probably do fine with a 1680x1050.

I tend to think of the high resolution displays as being the same as newspaper print. If you don't like reading the size of text in newspapers you probably wouldn't want the highest resolution LCD unless it's a 17" size. That said, I would think of 1280x800 LCDs as probably being good at 14" but I like screen real estate so I myself wouldn't like that for the larger screens.

Back to the topic on changing the scale of things... None of the LCDs scale upward from smaller resolutions (that I know), only downward, so that limits the 1280x800 to only less pixels not more. So the WSXGA+ (or WXGA+) has an advantage there, albeit a soft-look when reducing the pixels.