Dell XPS - GeForce Video Cards

Personally I'd avoid 1920x1200 screens. Granted you have more desktop real-estate and can see every pixel of high def footage but obviously the problem is everything displays smaller.

My current Vaio has a 17 inch screen with 1920x1200 screen. It's one of the reasons I bought it after seeing the quality of the screen in a local store. But after prolonged use I realised 1920x1200 in a 17 inch screen makes it too much of a strain on the eyes.

Some laptops even have 1920 x 1200 res in a 15 inch laptop which is absolute madness if you intend to use it for longer than 20 minutes at a time.

I've had my Vaio a few years now and I adapted to it. But I wont be getting another with a DPI so high.

Personally I lowered the DPI settings and increased zoom and font levels in various applications. But overall its more hassle than its worth. Non-default DPI settings catch some apps out while others take no notice of it anyway. Changing the resolution is not an option because anything other than native resolution gives fuzzy results.

1920x1200 on a 17" screen and below gives an uncomfortable DPI for most people in my opinion and should be avoided. Bully to anybody who finds it comfortable but I think you're the exception to the rule.

I couldn't disagree more, Anthony. There are several reasons why 1920x1200 is a very advantageous size.

First, if you're doing texturing work, a height of 1200 is a must. It's the absolute minimum you need to see a 1024x1024 texture at 100% magnification, after you account for the height of the Windows start bar, and the GUI of your graphics program.

Second, since a laptop screen is generally held so much closer to your face than a desktop monitor, the relative size is not that different. My two 24" monitors individually don't feel much bigger to me than the 17" laptop screen.

Third, and most importantly, I'd bet any amount of money that what's bugging your eyes about your Vaio screen is not actually the size of the pixels, but the quality of the display. Laptop screens, especially older ones, tend to suffer from too low a contrast ratio, and too high of a white point. When contrast is low, the eye inevitably becomes strained, but since it's expensive to make a high contrast flat panel, most laptop manufacturers don't bother. And the reason many of them make the white point so high is specifically for the reason you stated, so it will be eye-catching on a store shelf. Higher white point means, among other things, more intensity in the blue light being emitted from the screen. At first glance, that is something that attracts the eye. But, as you said, after prolonged exposure, it can start to hurt.

As for applications being screwed up by non-standard dpi, I can't imagine what you might mean by that. Your programs don't know anything about the physical size of your screen. All they know about is pixels. I've never had any application ever behave any differently upon changing a monitor's physical size. Change the number of pixels on it, sure, things then need to be readjusted. But the physical size is completely irrelevant in this context.

Even the "standards" of resolution aren't at all standard, by the way. Practically no screen in the world these days uses 72 ppi, but we still consider than number to be THE defining standard of what "dpi for on-screen images" means. A lesser used "standard" is 96 ppi, which is often a bit closer to reality, but it's still nothing more than an approximation. These numbers really mean nothing. In actual practice, ppi tends to range from about 60 to about 130, from monitor to monitor. The two 24" monitors I've got in front of me now, for example, are operating at around 94 ppi.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm just going on about 4 years of personal experience with my current laptop. To quickly reply to a couple of points though.

The screen is perfect quality so that's not the issue. It's an x-black screen. I can't fault the quality in anyway whatsoever even to this day. It was easily the best display technology at the time I purchased the laptop anyway and it still holds its own.

The DPI setting is currently at 120 DPI which is 125% normal size. The control panel even says "125% normal size (120 dpi)". The vast majority of people leave this on default though so most developers don't even bother accounting for it in their applications. For example only last week I was playing with PortableApps, and their latest fix was to account for non-default DPI. It often throws dialog layouts out too. But the main problem which I think was missed was purely BECAUSE it has no effect on most apps. It might enlarge the framework and dialogs but not the main content of windows - it keeps it at the same size when the whole point of changing the DPI settings was to enlarge everything without having to lower the resolution to something non-native.

In some cases like the texture editing you describe, the higher resolution is nice. But I'd recommend getting a larger screen in that case.

As far as SLI goes, for me, with dual 8800GT's, the latest viewer ran at MORE than half the speed. It was going from, for example, 50 FPS to 18 FPS.

The only SLI configuration that was at all positive was setting up anti-aliasing to use the two cards - a configuration that the Vista drivers do not support at present.

I built a new machine recently, and bought Vista Home Premium 64 bit for it, really expecting it to perform. I immediately installed SP1 on it as well. Two weeks later, Vista is uninstalled and I'm back to fast, reliable, and straightforward XP. Vista is shockingly slow. Unstable - functionality started failing and M$'s answer for my problems was to reinstall. And FWIW, Crysis ran 20% slower in Vista than XP for me.

My system isn't directly comparable to your, so YMMV. But if you do with with SLI and Vista, I wish you the best of luck.

We can, but let me take one more stab at it by responding to your points.


Look, I wasn't trying to bash your machine, or question you wisdom in having made the purchase. What I am doing is stating facts.

Fact #1: Four years ago, no flat panel LCD screen in the world had the contrast capabilities that their modern counterparts now have. 700:1 was considered "high" back then. 400:1 was average. Nowadays, 1000:1 is so commonplace, it's almost a standard, and 3000:1 is not unusual either.

Fact #2: Screens with lower contrast capabilities are harder to look at for long periods than those with more range. The eye muscles strain more as they search for missing information.

Fact #3: Many flat panel screens have their white point set unnaturally high by default. To give you an idea, monitors used in the print industry tend to be set to white point of 5000 Kelvin. This produces a white that is much redder than what most of us are used to looking at on screen, but much more closely resembles the white we see when we look at paper. Televisions are generally set to a white point of 6500 Kelvin, which is much more blue. Freeze frame your TV on a white image, and turn off the lights in the room for proof of this. You'll see that everything in the room is lit not in white, but in blue. The "white" we see on TV is actually a shade of blue. We're just so used to thinking of it as white, that we accept it as such. It's not uncommon for flat panel monitors to be set as high as 10,000 Kelvin, far bluer than even a TV. This is very eye catching, but also quite unrealistic when you look at it analytically, and quite straining on the eyes over time.

Fact #4: The vast majority of laptop manufacturers routinely buy the cheapest panels they can. This is necessary in order to keep the end price tag low. With the low cost usually comes low contrast and high white point. It's very expensive to manufacture high contrast LCD's. So most laptops can't afford to have them included in order to be sold at the prices they are.

Put all that together, and while it's entirely possible that your particular laptop was a good machine for its day, and probably still looks great in your estimation, it's highly unlikely that its screen has the specs necessary to help prevent eye strain.


Not that it matters, but the math doesn't seem to add up. If your screen is really 17 inches on the diagonal, and if its native resolution is 1920x1200, then Pythagoras tells us it must be roughly 9 inches tall, and 14.5 inches across. Divided into 1920, that's around 130 ppi at your default resolution.

If there are 130 pixels in an inch, each one is about .0077 inches across. And at 120 ppi, a single pixel is .0083 inches across. That puts the 120's at only about 8% larger than 130's.

We can therefore pretty easily conclude that your computer has no idea what an inch actually is. All it knows, as I said, is how many pixels it's drawing. Its labeling of dpi (which more properly would be ppi) is completely arbitrary.


OK, I think I misunderstood what you meant by "non-standard" before. I thought you were trying to say that by packing 1920x1200 pixels onto a 17" screen, that the screen itself is non-standard, since the usual size for a screen with that many pixels is 24 inches, or if you were to measure by imagery "standards", would come out to be around 31 inches.

I didn't realize what you actually meant was that you had made your own display "non-standard" by decreasing your ppi settings yourself. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

In that case, I do agree with you. Making such adjustments to your display can cause applications to misbehave.


In laptops, that's not really a viable option. I'm not aware of a single 24" notebook in existence. The biggest they go is 20", as far as I know, and there aren't a whole lot of options in that size. Most people just don't want to carry something that big around, or at least that's what the industry seems to think. Most of the good options for laptops come with 17" screens.

Look, obviously a laptop is far from ideal for doing artwork or photography or video editing or even gaming. So you're partially right that investing in one for those purposes is not necessarily the wisest use of your money. However, if you absolutely need portability, then you have to do what you have to do. There's no reason to sacrifice screen size just because you also happen to have to live with the fact that your laptop isn't going to be as good at ANYTHING as your desktop would be.




If I might ask a question, if items on your screen are too small for your liking, why not just increase font size and icon size, rather than changing the resolution? That's fairly simple to do. It's not like doubling the amount of pixels in a font makes the font harder to read, after all. If anything, it's the other way around. It makes the font come out to be the same size as if the screen had had half the resolution in the first place, only its letter shapes end up a lot more crisp, and more clearly defined. I'm really having trouble understanding the issue here.

I wasnt taking anything personal don't worry. I was replying with facts too. I'll make it more obvious by quoting your previous post this time.



So I said it's best to agree to disagree, because I have such a screen and not fully happy with the resolution, and you have one and you're happy. But I'm contending here that for the average person, 1920x1200 is too much for a 17 inch screen for prolonged periods of use. Prolonged use being the key here. Not the ability to read everything on screen without leaning right forward.



The extra desktop real-estate is certainly handy.



I'd say a 17" laptop is roughly like looking at a 21" monitor, but that's arguable because some scrunch up to the screen while others sit further back. But I'd say 24 inchs is the minimum for 1920x1200. So it's possible that a 19 or 20 inch laptop would be ideal, though havent tried one.



Yes all valid points. But in my case I don't think it applies. The x-black screen really is excellent. I'd go as far to say it's perfect. When viewed in the store it stood head and shoulders above every other laptop on show, hence my purchase. It also stands out against other screens I’ve used recently. It certainly wasn’t cheap either!



I just mean the DPI setting is something other than the default.



Exactly! And that's why adjusting the DPI setting does not bring the window contents back up to a more comfortable size. If it did there wouldn't be an issue.



Agreed on all of that. Though it's not relevant.

Also, if the system makes wrong assumptions about the physical size of the display then the DPI values might be off a little but again that's not relevant. The point is that changing from the default upsets apps and doesnt even fix the issue.

Replying to your last post...

For Facts #1 through #4. Not disagreeing but again, the quality and contrast are excellent. It's not a cheap display. It's an x-black panel. As the name suggests, the contrast is top notch.

Regarding all the math you gave. Didnt check the figures but not disagreeing that either, but again it's not relevant. The thing to take away from this is, changing from the default DPI setting doesnt bring the window contents back up to comfortable viewing. Would be wonderful if it did because things would be the same size as a lower res screen but much more crisp and sharp.

Regarding laptops not having a 24 inch option. There probably isnt like you say. So I can extend my opinion that no laptop is suitable for a resolution of 1920x1200 for prolonged periods of use.



Indeed, I increased the font size in all my code editors, increased zoom if an app supports it, and so on. It's the only reason I've held on to this laptop for so long. But it really would be more productive if 100% of apps always displayed everything at a more comfortable size without fiddling around. I'm looking forward to Firefox 3 coming out of beta because then I wont have to switch to Opera (which supports full page zoom) for the more lengthy articles. In Firefox 2 only the text size can be adjusted (which I also often make use of), but this often messes up CSS-layouts and isnt as suitable for thin columns of text. Actually I believe the latest Firefox beta fully implements the full page zoom now but I want to wait for all my favourite Add-ons to be supported first. But all that is mute really because as I alluded to, I'm looking for a new laptop. The hinge has broke and the keyboard has developed a fault. And now thanks to the latest compulsory update, no longer supports SL properly.

It doesnt help that I'm very underwelmed by the current state of laptops. The Dell XPS M1530 looks good on paper, but there's no XP drivers on their site, many come with dodgy Samsung screens (pot luck if you get a decent LG screen), and the quality of construction is hit and miss. Sony have out of date components especially with graphics. Alienware has excellent spec but is big, expensive and ugly. The Macbook Pro has a good spec and design but has a god awful keyboard - spongy cheap feel, useless UK key layout especially for programmers - as confirmed by two UK-based reviews I read. Had it not been for the keyboard I'd of got the Macbook Pro by now, installed XP on it, and gradually shifted over to the Mac OS.

I’m definitely having a cup-half-empty moment! Anyhow, thankyou Chosen Few for taking the time to reply. Always appreciated.

Anthony, this has turned out to be an interesting discussion. I'll take your cue, and agree to disagree about whether or not the eyestrain caused by your screen is from the size of its pixels or from other factors.

Since you're in the market for a new laptop, I'll take another opportunity to plug my favorite line of them, the G2S series from Asus, which I mentioned earlier. If a lower resolution screen is what you're after, you might want to check out the G2S-A4. The one I had was it's higher resolution sister, the G2S-A1, which I really loved. The only difference between the two is the screen resolution. The A4 has 1440x900 instead of 1920x1200. Both are 17".

At the lowest price I could find, the G2S-A4 costs about a hundred dollars more than the most expensive configuration of the Dell XPS M1530 you mentioned ($1611 vs. $1499), but it does come with the nice backpack and mouse. Spec comparison is a bit of a give and take between the two. The Dell has a slightly faster processor, but the ASUS's processor has a bigger cache. The Dell has a bigger hard drive, but the ASUS has a card reader and eSATA. Etc.

Full specs are at http://usa.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=5&l2=133&l3=491&l4=0&model=1675&modelmenu=2


If you're looking for a smaller machine, you might want to check out the G1S series, which is basically the same thing in 15.4". http://usa.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=5&l2=132&l3=490&l4=0&model=1674&modelmenu=1

I do have to say I've never actually seen the smaller screens in person, so the possibility does exist that they're not as nice as the larger ones. But the description of the technology is the same on both, so I'd imagine they're the same thing.