First, there are no problems regarding power consumption or heat on my 'maxed' D800.
I find it easier to just step the resolution down to WSXGA+ when I need larger fonts.
The increase in font sizing from 96 to 125 (or whatever) does not change your screen
resolution from 147 or cause any "jaggies".
Main disadvantage is that some programs contain text boxes that will now have text
that no longer fits in an unsizable box.
An example would be the 'Options' menu in the upper right corner of this
message. Options will now be ---"add this message to my |"
---------------------------------------------"add this message to my |"
---------------and you will never see "Report abuse............"
Future program writers will lessen this factor. But for now, a resolution
change is fast and unlike font boost, does not need reboot and on my WUXGA
does not cause any "jaggies".
If you need to skimp features on a portable, I would prefer to do it to the HD &
RAM as they are more likely candidates for future upgrade than a display. :)
But for now, a resolution change is fast and unlike font boost, does not need reboot and on my WUXGA does not cause any "jaggies".
From some of the comments I've read over time, I've been pretty sceptical about the jaggies. Yet, you're saying that a WUXGA (1920x ..)screen shows none at WSXGA+ (1600x...) screen. That's interesting. Of course, there have to be some jaggies, it must be that the WUXGA screen is so fine that they are very hard to see. Would that be it?
Would you also say that using the WUXGA screen at 1600 would be better than getting the WSXGA+ screen b/c of the advantages of the fine grained screen? Even if you were to use the 1600 resolution most of the time?
At this moment it is running 1680x1050, although Firefox does font sizing so nicely that I probably use 1920x1200 more often,
jaggies are invisable on this screen.
Check out the photo comparison through the link "WUXGA photo..." in my profile and that compares it to 1280x800!
When I ordered this, I had just accepted that I would have 'fine print' but my Sony VAIO's XGA (1024x768) was not enough
real estate for my needs. It was a bonus to see it next to the Sony, looking better at all resolutions, (XGA does
'stretch' the image due to the fact that it is 8:5 instead of Sony's 8:6 ratio). I like Dell's Blues better than
Sony's Blues but video driver allows adjustment of Blue etc..
Now this is my screen and I have not ever fiddeled with resolution on display models in the store or on other
peoples computers, but prior to getting this, I never thought of possibility of using lower resolutions.
Art
2 Intern
•
1.5K Posts
0
April 14th, 2005 21:00
I find it easier to just step the resolution down to WSXGA+ when I need larger fonts.
The increase in font sizing from 96 to 125 (or whatever) does not change your screen
resolution from 147 or cause any "jaggies".
Main disadvantage is that some programs contain text boxes that will now have text
that no longer fits in an unsizable box.
An example would be the 'Options' menu in the upper right corner of this
message. Options will now be ---"add this message to my |"
---------------------------------------------"add this message to my |"
---------------and you will never see "Report abuse............"
Future program writers will lessen this factor. But for now, a resolution
change is fast and unlike font boost, does not need reboot and on my WUXGA
does not cause any "jaggies".
If you need to skimp features on a portable, I would prefer to do it to the HD &
RAM as they are more likely candidates for future upgrade than a display. :)
Art
smoothh2o
24 Posts
0
April 14th, 2005 23:00
Thanks, Art, much appreciated.
But for now, a resolution
change is fast and unlike font boost, does not need reboot and on my WUXGA
does not cause any "jaggies".
From some of the comments I've read over time, I've been pretty sceptical about the jaggies. Yet, you're saying that a WUXGA (1920x ..)screen shows none at WSXGA+ (1600x...) screen. That's interesting. Of course, there have to be some jaggies, it must be that the WUXGA screen is so fine that they are very hard to see. Would that be it?
Would you also say that using the WUXGA screen at 1600 would be better than getting the WSXGA+ screen b/c of the advantages of the fine grained screen? Even if you were to use the 1600 resolution most of the time?
Smooth
Art
2 Intern
•
1.5K Posts
0
April 15th, 2005 12:00
At this moment it is running 1680x1050, although Firefox does font sizing so nicely that I probably use 1920x1200 more often,
jaggies are invisable on this screen.
Check out the photo comparison through the link "WUXGA photo..." in my profile and that compares it to 1280x800!
When I ordered this, I had just accepted that I would have 'fine print' but my Sony VAIO's XGA (1024x768) was not enough
real estate for my needs. It was a bonus to see it next to the Sony, looking better at all resolutions, (XGA does
'stretch' the image due to the fact that it is 8:5 instead of Sony's 8:6 ratio). I like Dell's Blues better than
Sony's Blues but video driver allows adjustment of Blue etc..
Now this is my screen and I have not ever fiddeled with resolution on display models in the store or on other
peoples computers, but prior to getting this, I never thought of possibility of using lower resolutions.
Art