Again: Why are you so persistent in trying to convince us? You keep accusing us of not reading your posts, but in non of your own posts you show any prove that you've read ours ... or tried to answer our questions. We've (in general, not me ) proven some of your points are flawed, but you ignore that and keep raving on about how right you are. Now it seems you want to have the Sharp specs (which according to you isn't a Sharp, other topic). I'm afraid you're gonna try to dazzle us with the specs of that screen, again totally ignoring all the objections we've raised against your theory ... GET OVER IT, you've bought a WXGA and apparantly are very happy with it (or not, I'm still not confinced you're not trying to confince yourself that you're happy with it) and a lot of other people are just as happy with their WUXGA: LET THEM BE HAPPY! THEN WE'LL LET YOU BE HAPPY!! (in your own little world).
/S913 is getting a bit annoyed at WW's method of discussion (ignoring other people's opinion)
Why you speak for other peoples ? They can decided on theyre own, which is better WXGA or WUXGA. It looks like you are trying to confince yourself that you're buy bad LCD. Be happy with your WUXGA and Other peoples can make free choice which LCD is better for them. I dont tell to nobody that they must buy WXGA. I try to help to others who still not decided. They can think which is expensive so its better, but its not true. WUXGA is latest technology with more mistakes. Who need faster LCD for games takes WXGA. Who need more workspace they can buy 21 CRT. Do you understand.
Message Edited by William.w on 01-27-2004 08:42 AM
Ok whatever. I'm not about to type this out all over one more time.
You keep mentioning all these different 'problems' with the WUXGA
screen. You mention that the screens made by Hitachi have problems.
Where are you getting this information?
There is a thread on WSXGA+ screens that were having problems, and
those screens were manufactured by Hitachi. There were questions
about response time, and specs. It is true that these problem displays
were made by Hitachi. THe screens that seem to be currently shipping
from dell appear to ALL be Samsung, and to have no problems.
But you are constantly complaining about WUXGA. I haven't seen a
single thread on widespread probles with the WUXGA screen. Also
to the best of my knowledge Dell has NEVER used Hitachi, or Samsung
for it's WUXGA screens. For WUXGA, Dell appears to use Sharp, and
Toshiba screens.
Every screen has it's specs. Dell is very quiet on the actual
specs of the different screens they use. They only publish the
minimum spec they told al lthe suppliers to meet. Some vendors
obviously will surpass thos specs in some areas and other vendors
might surpass them in other areas.
You have asked for specific model number people have. I can't
post mine yet, because my Laptop is being shipped to me now.
At the end of the day, everyone has their own opinion of
what a good screen is for them. Yes there is a trade off between
the number of pixels and the size of those pixels. And those with
poorer eyesight may not like the smaller pixels and fonts that
come with them. But others will shoose the extended screen real
estate to make them more productive on the road.
For me Game playing is the last thing on my list. This laptop
and screen will serve my purposes fine. If the ATI card can't
play the came the way I'd like at 1920x1200 or 1600x1200, then
fine, I'll play it at 1024x768 on this laptop too.. just like you
will. My picture will be slightly smaller sure, but I don't care -
The image will be just as good as yours, each pixel will still
look the same color on mine as it does on yours. The pixels will
just be smaller and closer together.
If the size really bugs me, then maybe I'll turn screen stretching
on... Depending on the resolution, that might make things look a
little worse.. but my eyes are good and I don't think I'll use it
very often.
I haven't been able to test it but I'd be surprised if there weren't
'integer screen streching' modes. While they wouldn't use the whole
screen, on these big screens you could multiply many of the smaller
resolutions by exactly 2. For each pixel in the image, you light up
exactly 4 on the screen. This would make 640x480 look THE SAME
SIZE as 1280x960. It won't have an better detail, but it will
show up larger on the screen, and NOT HAVE ANY OF THE DISTORTION.
800x600 will appear the same size as like 1600x1200.
The SXGA, SXGA+, UXGA, WSXGA+ and WUXGA screens have the space to
do this 'integer streching.' XGA and WXGA can't.
Obviously a screen that was 2048x1536 (4:3) or somthing like
2560x1600 (16:10) would be idea because then you could stretch
XGA (ow WXGA even :) ) 2x in each direction also. But who knows
how long it'll take to get screens like that manufactured and
I'm not ready to wait.
Wether WXGA looks beter to you or not is up to you. All that
I've ever been arguing is that two LCD panels of any size with
the same response rate* will 'ghost' identically.
-Kyle
*Maybe I should point out that just having the same 'total'
response time doesn't make 2 screens the same. There are
seperate factors that contribute to the 'total' response
time. There is a 'rise time' and a 'fall time' and maybe other
contributing factors. For 2 screens to be identical then
all these idividual factors will need to be identical also.
But none of these factors change when the panel gets to be
higher resolution.
wow let me be the first to say this thread is based on false information and is truely ridiculous.
anyone who would rather have a XGA screen versus a UXGA screen is misinformed OR prefers having lower resolutions.
as for me i would not have it any other way than 1920x1200, not only do you have higher pixel density which yields crisper images IN ALL SITUATIONS.
either way if you like lower resolutions because fonts are bigger you can just goto windows and made the fonts extra large or whatever suits your fancy. either way WUXGA>WSXGA+>WXGA
I don't speak for other people, I just don't like the way you try forcing people to see your opinion while for some unknown reason you're totally ignoring all the facts presented that prove you wrong! You keep insisting that we don't read your post, but apparently you lack the knowledge to proof other peoples facts wrong or even discuss them. You don't discus, you enforce your 'rightness' onto other people without being open to a REAL discussion.
Regarding your statement that games are developed for standarD 1024x768, don't know where you came up with that? Games aren't developed for 1 specific resolution, they're designed to support serveral resolutions ... And since we're prophesizing about the future: You claim I won't be able to run games anymore on my native resolution ... maybe by then 1024x768 is dead (1280x1024 is already gaining ground in the CRT market) and you won't be able to run any new game on you 1280x800. You can't be sure, I can't be sure ... let's not speculate and make things more complicated for the people you try to help choose a resolution.
What about SCREEN BURN, is there any WXGA with this problem !!!
WUXGA is absolutly funny on 15,4 TFT. Notebook I have for games ( ATI Radeon 128MB PRO ) and for DVD. I dont need WUXGA, I can work on WXGA too without any problems. Before Inspiron 8600 I had Compaq presario with 15 TFT XGA. You cannot compare this too screens WXGA and XGA, its like heaven and bagpipes. WXGA is nice.
Hey...Screen burn doesn't have to do with WUXGA, WSXGA+ or WXGA...It happens a long time ago only at samsung LCD with faulty transistor, it doesn't happen anymore with a WUXGA samsung. I've ever heard someone(the moderator) explain this problem in this video forum.
Once more...screen burn doesn't have to do with WUXGA or WXGA!!!
Anyway...enjoy your WXGA...
Massage to everybody: I am not saying that WUXGA is better than WSXGA+ or WXGA. Some people just find that WXGA or WSXGA+ looks nicer or better for the eyes and WUXGA resolution is a little bit to much. Actually if you choose WXGA, WSXGA+ or WUXGA is more about taste and what you comfortable with. Don't listen to this guy( W W) that saying "WXGA is better than WUXGA" or "WXGA is FASTER than WUXGA". WUXGA is as fast as WSXGA+ and WXGA. But only different in resolution.
i think the main problem is that most people are computer noobs and they don't realize that even at 1920x1200 you can make your fonts and icons just as big as they would be in say 1280x900.
so the arguement about the fonts being too small is just silly. WUXGA will give you the same font sizes and icon sizes with higher clarity due to higher pixel density.
omg please stop this silly arguement.
if you have money ID suggest getting the WUXGA if money is a concern than is go WSGA+, but the only reason that i buy dell machines is due to the availibility of WUXGA. once you get used to the awesomeness of UXGA you don't go back to lower resolutions unless you have to :D
There is another thing. I have better qualitty image in 1024x768 or 1280x800 then WUXGA. So I can play all games longer then you. After one or two eyars your ATI will be not eanought to play all games with everything effect on. You will have to play in same resolution as WXGA and you will have poor image. All games are developed on standart 1024x768. 1600x1200 dont have much better quality as you write, because therea are not such detailed things, which you can see only in 1600x1200 but in 1024x768 you cant. I cant see any Adveture in 1600x1200. 800x600 its horrible on your WUXGA.
This is what my dad always call mental mastvrbation. William.w, please put down the crack pipe, re-read what Kyle has told you (and told you and told you) and TRY to understand what he has said. It's not that hard, if you relax the deathgrip you have on your preconceived notions.
I have the Sharp WUXGA (according to Dell's System As Shipped page). I don't know what the Sharp part # for it is. But I will bet you a dollar that your WXGA screen does not have better image quality than mine at multiple resolutions. It *might* be better at its native resolution than my WUXGA when running at YOUR native resolution. At all others, it's going to be stretching the image on either one, in which case the WUXGA will always look better. And what mine looks like at WXGA resolution is really of no concern to me, anyway. I have no interest in running it that way. I set Windows to "Large Fonts" and I can see them just fine. The 15.4" screen is plenty big enough for me to be happy at 1920x1200. And though I'm at Large Fonts, they're still smaller than your WXGA fonts at "Normal size" so I can still fit more on the screen at one time. As has been said already, this is very handy when editing or debugging code and you want to see the running app and the debugger at the same time (just for one example).
As for your comment about having no advantage for running games at the higher resolution, I can only talk about Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. I'm not a gamer, so that's the only game I've run on mine. But I tried it at many different resolutions, all scaled up to preserve the aspect ratio but fill the screen (leaves black bars on the sides) and I can say that the higher the resolution, the better and more detailed it looks. I've got the GeForce FX 5650 video, and SWKOTOR gets a little laggy at 1600x1200, but at 1440x it is completely smooth, and I'll bet you another dollar it looks a lot better than whatever low resolution your machine can run it at.
And did you mention DVD playback? Oh, well the DVD's native resolution is lower than either of our screens. So, again, the WUXGA screen will always look better than WXGA when playing a DVD.
So, please stop saying that WXGA is "better" than WUXGA. Say "I like WXGA better than WUXGA" if you want. THAT is obviously true. Though, even when you say that, in the interest of full disclosure, you might mention that you have never SEEN the WUXGA screen in person, so your opinion is really worthless next to all those people who have spoken up who actually HAVE seen them both. Especially since it's seems that ALL those people are saying that the WUXGA is as good or better.
william what is wrong with my explanation of how response times of LCD's work what did you not understand, and the only case that a WXGA will look better than a WUXGA is when the WXGA is running at its native resolution and the WUXGA is running at the same resolution as the WXGA native, then obviously the WXGA will look better because its not doing scaling. but that is the only time, for all other resolutions the scaling should be better with the WUXGA because it has more pixels, did anyone find any flaws with what i said on why a LCD with the same size but more pixels wouldnt change the response time?
W.W., Unfortunately for me I did read thru the whole thread. Your points are baseless and misleading to say the least. Your theory that more pixels equal slower response time is wrong. Response time is response time and it does not change with resolution. A 35 ms response time is a 35 ms response time period. Your examples are flawed but hey… to each his own. If you choose to believe that your WXGA is better so be it. Like the old saying goes ignorance is bliss.
BTW I never said your "WXGA will have bad quality of image" I said that if you choose to use your laptop as anything other than a glorified game console then WSXGA and WUXGA are better choices. I also want to point out that WUXGA is not for everyone since the fonts can be small and for many users WSXGA is the better choice. Have a good day!
To all: I speak about my theory with profesors of physics at my University and they told me that my theory is right, that is simple physics. In few days I will write better explanations for my theory and all who dont understad yet, will be. Be affarid that all guys who writes that Im wrong will be for stupid. After my new article I give All your names to all people can see haw stupid you are.
See you soon !!!
P.S. This is not my theory, this is easy physics !!!
william did you not get that an LCD screen can refresh 2 million pixels in 35ms or 100 thousand in 35ms, it doesnt matter how many pixels thats why its the same on both LCD's, think about it
im with you william w, being a pure gamer i know that refresh rates are more important than general resolution, and wxga is good, i can see needing the wuxga if you are a photographer or something but in my opinion that much resolution is overkill for anything ill ever need out of a screen. even if william is wrong the wxga is a lot cheaper than the wuxga, although i may get the wsxga. i definately see willams point, and the rest of yours too. im only 17 not even out of high school so i dont know a lot about physics but willams posts seem smarter than the rest but maybe thats just me.
S913
11 Posts
0
January 27th, 2004 12:00
Again: Why are you so persistent in trying to convince us? You keep accusing us of not reading your posts, but in non of your own posts you show any prove that you've read ours ... or tried to answer our questions. We've (in general, not me
) proven some of your points are flawed, but you ignore that and keep raving on about how right you are. Now it seems you want to have the Sharp specs (which according to you isn't a Sharp, other topic). I'm afraid you're gonna try to dazzle us with the specs of that screen, again totally ignoring all the objections we've raised against your theory ... GET OVER IT, you've bought a WXGA and apparantly are very happy with it (or not, I'm still not confinced you're not trying to confince yourself that you're happy with it) and a lot of other people are just as happy with their WUXGA: LET THEM BE HAPPY! THEN WE'LL LET YOU BE HAPPY!! (in your own little world).
/S913 is getting a bit annoyed at WW's method of discussion (ignoring other people's opinion)
William.w
31 Posts
0
January 27th, 2004 12:00
Message Edited by William.w on 01-27-2004 08:42 AM
kjmcdonald
14 Posts
0
January 27th, 2004 13:00
You keep mentioning all these different 'problems' with the WUXGA
screen. You mention that the screens made by Hitachi have problems.
Where are you getting this information?
There is a thread on WSXGA+ screens that were having problems, and
those screens were manufactured by Hitachi. There were questions
about response time, and specs. It is true that these problem displays
were made by Hitachi. THe screens that seem to be currently shipping
from dell appear to ALL be Samsung, and to have no problems.
But you are constantly complaining about WUXGA. I haven't seen a
single thread on widespread probles with the WUXGA screen. Also
to the best of my knowledge Dell has NEVER used Hitachi, or Samsung
for it's WUXGA screens. For WUXGA, Dell appears to use Sharp, and
Toshiba screens.
Every screen has it's specs. Dell is very quiet on the actual
specs of the different screens they use. They only publish the
minimum spec they told al lthe suppliers to meet. Some vendors
obviously will surpass thos specs in some areas and other vendors
might surpass them in other areas.
You have asked for specific model number people have. I can't
post mine yet, because my Laptop is being shipped to me now.
At the end of the day, everyone has their own opinion of
what a good screen is for them. Yes there is a trade off between
the number of pixels and the size of those pixels. And those with
poorer eyesight may not like the smaller pixels and fonts that
come with them. But others will shoose the extended screen real
estate to make them more productive on the road.
For me Game playing is the last thing on my list. This laptop
and screen will serve my purposes fine. If the ATI card can't
play the came the way I'd like at 1920x1200 or 1600x1200, then
fine, I'll play it at 1024x768 on this laptop too.. just like you
will. My picture will be slightly smaller sure, but I don't care -
The image will be just as good as yours, each pixel will still
look the same color on mine as it does on yours. The pixels will
just be smaller and closer together.
If the size really bugs me, then maybe I'll turn screen stretching
on... Depending on the resolution, that might make things look a
little worse.. but my eyes are good and I don't think I'll use it
very often.
I haven't been able to test it but I'd be surprised if there weren't
'integer screen streching' modes. While they wouldn't use the whole
screen, on these big screens you could multiply many of the smaller
resolutions by exactly 2. For each pixel in the image, you light up
exactly 4 on the screen. This would make 640x480 look THE SAME
SIZE as 1280x960. It won't have an better detail, but it will
show up larger on the screen, and NOT HAVE ANY OF THE DISTORTION.
800x600 will appear the same size as like 1600x1200.
The SXGA, SXGA+, UXGA, WSXGA+ and WUXGA screens have the space to
do this 'integer streching.' XGA and WXGA can't.
Obviously a screen that was 2048x1536 (4:3) or somthing like
2560x1600 (16:10) would be idea because then you could stretch
XGA (ow WXGA even :) ) 2x in each direction also. But who knows
how long it'll take to get screens like that manufactured and
I'm not ready to wait.
Wether WXGA looks beter to you or not is up to you. All that
I've ever been arguing is that two LCD panels of any size with
the same response rate* will 'ghost' identically.
-Kyle
*Maybe I should point out that just having the same 'total'
response time doesn't make 2 screens the same. There are
seperate factors that contribute to the 'total' response
time. There is a 'rise time' and a 'fall time' and maybe other
contributing factors. For 2 screens to be identical then
all these idividual factors will need to be identical also.
But none of these factors change when the panel gets to be
higher resolution.
PYROTAK
99 Posts
0
January 27th, 2004 13:00
anyone who would rather have a XGA screen versus a UXGA screen is misinformed OR prefers having lower resolutions.
as for me i would not have it any other way than 1920x1200, not only do you have higher pixel density which yields crisper images IN ALL SITUATIONS.
either way if you like lower resolutions because fonts are bigger you can just goto windows and made the fonts extra large or whatever suits your fancy. either way WUXGA>WSXGA+>WXGA
[/thread]
S913
11 Posts
0
January 27th, 2004 13:00
I don't speak for other people, I just don't like the way you try forcing people to see your opinion while for some unknown reason you're totally ignoring all the facts presented that prove you wrong! You keep insisting that we don't read your post, but apparently you lack the knowledge to proof other peoples facts wrong or even discuss them. You don't discus, you enforce your 'rightness' onto other people without being open to a REAL discussion.
Regarding your statement that games are developed for standarD 1024x768, don't know where you came up with that? Games aren't developed for 1 specific resolution, they're designed to support serveral resolutions ... And since we're prophesizing about the future: You claim I won't be able to run games anymore on my native resolution ... maybe by then 1024x768 is dead (1280x1024 is already gaining ground in the CRT market) and you won't be able to run any new game on you 1280x800. You can't be sure, I can't be sure ... let's not speculate and make things more complicated for the people you try to help choose a resolution.
onetobenl
73 Posts
0
January 27th, 2004 15:00
Hey...Screen burn doesn't have to do with WUXGA, WSXGA+ or WXGA...It happens a long time ago only at samsung LCD with faulty transistor, it doesn't happen anymore with a WUXGA samsung. I've ever heard someone(the moderator) explain this problem in this video forum.
Once more...screen burn doesn't have to do with WUXGA or WXGA!!!
Anyway...enjoy your WXGA...
Massage to everybody: I am not saying that WUXGA is better than WSXGA+ or WXGA. Some people just find that WXGA or WSXGA+ looks nicer or better for the eyes and WUXGA resolution is a little bit to much. Actually if you choose WXGA, WSXGA+ or WUXGA is more about taste and what you comfortable with. Don't listen to this guy( W W) that saying "WXGA is better than WUXGA" or "WXGA is FASTER than WUXGA". WUXGA is as fast as WSXGA+ and WXGA. But only different in resolution.
cheers..
PYROTAK
99 Posts
0
January 27th, 2004 16:00
so the arguement about the fonts being too small is just silly. WUXGA will give you the same font sizes and icon sizes with higher clarity due to higher pixel density.
omg please stop this silly arguement.
if you have money ID suggest getting the WUXGA if money is a concern than is go WSGA+, but the only reason that i buy dell machines is due to the availibility of WUXGA. once you get used to the awesomeness of UXGA you don't go back to lower resolutions unless you have to :D
StuartV
1 Rookie
•
55 Posts
0
January 27th, 2004 20:00
This is what my dad always call mental mastvrbation. William.w, please put down the crack pipe, re-read what Kyle has told you (and told you and told you) and TRY to understand what he has said. It's not that hard, if you relax the deathgrip you have on your preconceived notions.
I have the Sharp WUXGA (according to Dell's System As Shipped page). I don't know what the Sharp part # for it is. But I will bet you a dollar that your WXGA screen does not have better image quality than mine at multiple resolutions. It *might* be better at its native resolution than my WUXGA when running at YOUR native resolution. At all others, it's going to be stretching the image on either one, in which case the WUXGA will always look better. And what mine looks like at WXGA resolution is really of no concern to me, anyway. I have no interest in running it that way. I set Windows to "Large Fonts" and I can see them just fine. The 15.4" screen is plenty big enough for me to be happy at 1920x1200. And though I'm at Large Fonts, they're still smaller than your WXGA fonts at "Normal size" so I can still fit more on the screen at one time. As has been said already, this is very handy when editing or debugging code and you want to see the running app and the debugger at the same time (just for one example).
As for your comment about having no advantage for running games at the higher resolution, I can only talk about Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. I'm not a gamer, so that's the only game I've run on mine. But I tried it at many different resolutions, all scaled up to preserve the aspect ratio but fill the screen (leaves black bars on the sides) and I can say that the higher the resolution, the better and more detailed it looks. I've got the GeForce FX 5650 video, and SWKOTOR gets a little laggy at 1600x1200, but at 1440x it is completely smooth, and I'll bet you another dollar it looks a lot better than whatever low resolution your machine can run it at.
And did you mention DVD playback? Oh, well the DVD's native resolution is lower than either of our screens. So, again, the WUXGA screen will always look better than WXGA when playing a DVD.
So, please stop saying that WXGA is "better" than WUXGA. Say "I like WXGA better than WUXGA" if you want. THAT is obviously true. Though, even when you say that, in the interest of full disclosure, you might mention that you have never SEEN the WUXGA screen in person, so your opinion is really worthless next to all those people who have spoken up who actually HAVE seen them both. Especially since it's seems that ALL those people are saying that the WUXGA is as good or better.
- Stu
StuartV
1 Rookie
•
55 Posts
0
January 27th, 2004 20:00
RivaTuner reports my Monitor Manufacturer ID as "SHP" and the Model ID as "139f".
For anybody that cares...
- Stu
Xevious
43 Posts
0
January 28th, 2004 01:00
ChuckBZ
7 Posts
0
January 28th, 2004 04:00
W.W.,
Unfortunately for me I did read thru the whole thread. Your points are baseless and misleading to say the least. Your theory that more pixels equal slower response time is wrong. Response time is response time and it does not change with resolution. A 35 ms response time is a 35 ms response time period. Your examples are flawed but hey… to each his own. If you choose to believe that your WXGA is better so be it. Like the old saying goes ignorance is bliss.
BTW I never said your "WXGA will have bad quality of image" I said that if you choose to use your laptop as anything other than a glorified game console then WSXGA and WUXGA are better choices. I also want to point out that WUXGA is not for everyone since the fonts can be small and for many users WSXGA is the better choice.
Have a good day!
Message Edited by ChuckBZ on 01-27-2004 11:46 PM
Message Edited by ChuckBZ on 01-27-2004 11:46 PM
StuartV
1 Rookie
•
55 Posts
0
January 28th, 2004 16:00
What university are you going to? I want to make sure I never hire anybody that graduated from there.
William.w
31 Posts
0
January 28th, 2004 16:00
To all: I speak about my theory with profesors of physics at my University and they told me that my theory is right, that is simple physics. In few days I will write better explanations for my theory and all who dont understad yet, will be. Be affarid that all guys who writes that Im wrong will be for stupid. After my new article I give All your names to all people can see haw stupid you are.
See you soon !!!
P.S. This is not my theory, this is easy physics !!!
Xevious
43 Posts
0
January 28th, 2004 17:00
raiden00
83 Posts
0
January 28th, 2004 18:00