My wife and I just made a deal - I upgrade my desktop and she gets a laptop.
So, now, as I have just ordered my upgrade components from Newegg, I am
researching laptops. I've got a good idea of the processor type, memory,
hard drive she needs, but I don't know how to evaluate the displays of the
various laptops, and the display is the most important thing to my wife.

Is there anything in the specs that I should be paying most attention to in
order to get the best display? I have seen WXGA, XGA, TFT, wide XGA+,
SXGA+, crystal brite, ultrabrite, trubrite, etc., but there seems to be
nothing quantifiable about the displays that I can use to compare them from
one unit to another.

Also, most laptops seem to tout "wide" screens or at least wide screen
support. If my wife is not going to be watching movies on the laptop (she
isn't), should I stay away from "wide" screens?

Any advice will be appreciated.

Thanks,

Jack

Since the display is the most important option to your wife, my advise would
be to visit a store like comp USA, FRY's, or BestBuy. Not to purchase, but
to get a look at what the different display's look like. Getting advise
won't really convince me until I've actually seen it.

--shockwa

"shockwa" <me@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:SEleh.26047$qO4.2464@newssvr13.news.prodigy.n et...
> Since the display is the most important option to your wife, my advise
> would be to visit a store like comp USA, FRY's, or BestBuy. Not to
> purchase, but to get a look at what the different display's look like.
> Getting advise won't really convince me until I've actually seen it.
>
> --shockwa
>

Well, we will do that next week or so, but I'm not sure how much help that
will be. The store displays all look pretty much the same to me, expecially
with the bright florescent lights above. I thought there might be some
display specs like there are for desktop monitors, but I haven't seen
anything like that, at least not on Newegg.

Jack Bruss <jbruss@wi.rr.com> wrote

> My wife and I just made a deal - I upgrade my desktop and she gets a laptop.

Isnt that bribery and corruption of the very worst kind ?

> So, now, as I have just ordered my upgrade components from
> Newegg, I am researching laptops. I've got a good idea of the
> processor type, memory, hard drive she needs, but I don't know how to evaluate the displays of the
> various laptops, and the display is the most important thing to my wife.

If its that important, safest to actually look at one before you buy it.

> Is there anything in the specs that I should be paying most attention to in order to get the best
> display?

Nope, all of the current laptops have very usable displays.

> I have seen WXGA, XGA, TFT, wide XGA+, SXGA+,

That stuff isnt really significant except the W for wide.

> crystal brite, ultrabrite, trubrite, etc.,

And that is salesbull****.

> but there seems to be nothing quantifiable about the displays that I can use to compare them from
> one unit to another.

Yeah, you dont get that much in the way of specs with laptop screens.

It really doesnt matter that much.

> Also, most laptops seem to tout "wide" screens or at least wide screen support. If my wife is not
> going to be watching movies on the laptop (she isn't), should I stay away from "wide" screens?

Nope, they work fine for normal stuff.

> Any advice will be appreciated.

Jack Bruss wrote:
> "shockwa" <me@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:SEleh.26047$qO4.2464@newssvr13.news.prodigy.n et...
>> Since the display is the most important option to your wife, my advise
>> would be to visit a store like comp USA, FRY's, or BestBuy. Not to
>> purchase, but to get a look at what the different display's look like.
>> Getting advise won't really convince me until I've actually seen it.
>>
>> --shockwa
>>
>
> Well, we will do that next week or so, but I'm not sure how much help that
> will be. The store displays all look pretty much the same to me, expecially
> with the bright florescent lights above. I thought there might be some
> display specs like there are for desktop monitors, but I haven't seen
> anything like that, at least not on Newegg.
>
>

The last time I was in the Best Buy, there were a couple laptops with
better looking displays. They were expensive. So you might very well
see something that looks better. For display quality, examining the
product in person is always the best thing to do - specs are not a
good predictor of what to expect. If you have to order over the Internet,
(say because you live in a rural area), buy from a vendor that has a
no-questions-asked returns policy. One thing I cannot stand, is a
bad looking display.

Paul

The realities are that in the commonly available products, you probably
are not going to have a choice of either 4:3 vs. widescreen, or the
gloss finish vs. the matte finish. I'm not saying that it's good or
that I agree with it, but almost all of the commonly available products
are currently widescreen displays (typically 1280x800 resolution) with
the glossy screen face.

There are some qualitative measurements of LCD screens, but that doesn't
matter because for the most part laptops specs don't give values for
them (the one that you are most likely to see is Contrast ratio, which
is about the least important). And, in fact, there isn't even a
standardized way to measure some of these characteristics, so even if
you have numbers, comparisons may be meaningless: The worse screen (on
paper) could be the better screen in actuality.

You can still find a few laptops with 4:3 screens and matte finish
screens, but they won't be the most commonly available products, and
they may not be what you want for other reasons. You just have to
compare laptop-to-laptop and pick the ones that are, overall, best
suited to what you want. I can't give you specific advice of machines
to look towards or avoid, since I have no idea what your needs or
preferences are (with regard to the screen or anything else).

That said, what I would advise you to get is:

-Intel CPU with Core Duo or Core 2 Duo processor (NOT a Celeron)
-1GB of memory (perhaps more, but 2GB is quite costly)
-DVD burner (for data backup, not "movies")
-80 gig or larger hard drive
-A video system that is capable of running Vista's "Aero Glass" interface

Also, at this time, look for a machine that comes with XP Media Center
or XP Pro, not XP Home. There is a huge difference in the Vista upgrade
option that the machine will have, a difference worth (by itself) $100
to $200.

You can get all of that in a machine starting at about $600, give or take.


Jack Bruss wrote:
> My wife and I just made a deal - I upgrade my desktop and she gets a laptop.
> So, now, as I have just ordered my upgrade components from Newegg, I am
> researching laptops. I've got a good idea of the processor type, memory,
> hard drive she needs, but I don't know how to evaluate the displays of the
> various laptops, and the display is the most important thing to my wife.
>
> Is there anything in the specs that I should be paying most attention to in
> order to get the best display? I have seen WXGA, XGA, TFT, wide XGA+,
> SXGA+, crystal brite, ultrabrite, trubrite, etc., but there seems to be
> nothing quantifiable about the displays that I can use to compare them from
> one unit to another.
>
> Also, most laptops seem to tout "wide" screens or at least wide screen
> support. If my wife is not going to be watching movies on the laptop (she
> isn't), should I stay away from "wide" screens?
>
> Any advice will be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jack
>
>

Wide screens are good mainly for watching movies. When I bought my laptop PC last year I avoided wide screens and got a 4:3 aspect screen. Most things that I view e.g. web pages and e-mail are higher than they are wide. If you play games pixel response is important. If you do image editing things such as contrast ratio and luminance are important. Keep in mind that LCDs work well at only their native resolution. A high resolution dislply will be sharp, but images and text with some software e.g. browsers may be too small. Features such as crystal brite, ultrabrite, trubrite are difficult to compare as most are proprietary and may vary from model to model. The best way to compare displays is to look at them under the conditions you will be using it; not always easy to do since most are either in a store under florescent lamps or are not accessible e.g. Dell.

Jack Bruss wrote:
>
> My wife and I just made a deal - I upgrade my desktop and she gets a laptop.
> So, now, as I have just ordered my upgrade components from Newegg, I am
> researching laptops. I've got a good idea of the processor type, memory,
> hard drive she needs, but I don't know how to evaluate the displays of the
> various laptops, and the display is the most important thing to my wife.
>
> Is there anything in the specs that I should be paying most attention to in
> order to get the best display? I have seen WXGA, XGA, TFT, wide XGA+,
> SXGA+, crystal brite, ultrabrite, trubrite, etc., but there seems to be
> nothing quantifiable about the displays that I can use to compare them from
> one unit to another.
>
> Also, most laptops seem to tout "wide" screens or at least wide screen
> support. If my wife is not going to be watching movies on the laptop (she
> isn't), should I stay away from "wide" screens?
>
> Any advice will be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jack

--
Mike Walsh
West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.

Mike Walsh <spamscks@netrox.net> wrote

> Wide screens are good mainly for watching movies.

They're also good for forms and spreadsheets, because you often
want more width than depth, because the depth is paged anyway.

> When I bought my laptop PC last year I avoided wide screens
> and got a 4:3 aspect screen. Most things that I view e.g. web
> pages and e-mail are higher than they are wide.

Yes, but since you dont often see them fit vertically on a 4:3 aspect
screen, the width does allow you to see more horizontally and since
you have to page vertically anyway, its no big deal in practice.

> If you play games pixel response is important. If you do image
> editing things such as contrast ratio and luminance are
> important. Keep in mind that LCDs work well at only their native
> resolution. A high resolution dislply will be sharp, but images and
> text with some software e.g. browsers may be too small. Features
> such as crystal brite, ultrabrite, trubrite are difficult to compare as
> most are proprietary and may vary from model to model. The best
> way to compare displays is to look at them under the conditions
> you will be using it; not always easy to do since most are either
> in a store under florescent lamps or are not accessible e.g. Dell.


> Jack Bruss wrote:
>>
>> My wife and I just made a deal - I upgrade my desktop and she gets a
>> laptop. So, now, as I have just ordered my upgrade components from
>> Newegg, I am researching laptops. I've got a good idea of the
>> processor type, memory, hard drive she needs, but I don't know how
>> to evaluate the displays of the various laptops, and the display is
>> the most important thing to my wife.
>>
>> Is there anything in the specs that I should be paying most
>> attention to in order to get the best display? I have seen WXGA,
>> XGA, TFT, wide XGA+, SXGA+, crystal brite, ultrabrite, trubrite,
>> etc., but there seems to be nothing quantifiable about the displays
>> that I can use to compare them from one unit to another.
>>
>> Also, most laptops seem to tout "wide" screens or at least wide
>> screen support. If my wife is not going to be watching movies on
>> the laptop (she isn't), should I stay away from "wide" screens?
>>
>> Any advice will be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jack

"Jack Bruss" <jbruss@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jfleh.18798$U81.11920@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> My wife and I just made a deal - I upgrade my desktop and she gets a
> laptop. So, now, as I have just ordered my upgrade components from Newegg,
> I am researching laptops. I've got a good idea of the processor type,
> memory, hard drive she needs, but I don't know how to evaluate the
> displays of the various laptops, and the display is the most important
> thing to my wife.
>
> Is there anything in the specs that I should be paying most attention to
> in order to get the best display? I have seen WXGA, XGA, TFT, wide XGA+,
> SXGA+, crystal brite, ultrabrite, trubrite, etc., but there seems to be
> nothing quantifiable about the displays that I can use to compare them
> from one unit to another.
>
> Also, most laptops seem to tout "wide" screens or at least wide screen
> support. If my wife is not going to be watching movies on the laptop (she
> isn't), should I stay away from "wide" screens?
>
> Any advice will be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jack

Hello, my turn to add something.
I originally wanted to purchase a 4:3 laptop for compatibility for the
programs
I had known for a number of years. I hate stretching on the screen.
I gave up searching and decided to get a 4:3 external LCD monitor with the
laptop,
which I got for almost half price because it was a display model.

I got a laptop with WSXGA (1680 X 1050). I was surprised to discover with
ATI 1600
graphics that it had the option to maintain aspect ratio, so I could get a
4:3 display with pillar
boxing. This allowed me to get a screen resolution similar to more
computers when I wanted
to compare web pages I made to a 4:3 screen.
My screen also is not the glossy type. I think this is the better option,
though I have only
looked at glossy screens in stores. With the laptop screen, the brightness
varies a lot with the time
of day, with lighting and even how the eyes vary. This took a little bit of
getting used to.

In theory widescreen is just better because it allows a sense of more room,
it seems more like how
one prefers to look at something with their eyes. Because though screens
have been 4:3 for so long,
compatibility with especially computer games becomes hit and miss.

Whenever I attach my 4:3 1024 X 768 screen it seems more limited and less
appealing to spend a lot
of time looking at. But it is usually used for a second monitor.

With a high resolution too, icons and text might appear smaller, I found it
necessary to use large icons.

My impression of glossy screen types, is that they are less prone to washing
out in light.
The problems with them are that you get a mirror effect, similar to looking
in a pool of water.
My impression of them also is that they tend to give a higher contrast. I
don't like high contrast, I like
to get a more even look. This has been an issue with television displays
too for me.

>
>

"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message news:elcr4q$5ph$1@aioe.org
> The last time I was in the Best Buy, there were a couple laptops with
> better looking displays. They were expensive. So you might very well
> see something that looks better. For display quality, examining the
> product in person is always the best thing to do - specs are not a
> good predictor of what to expect. If you have to order over the
> Internet, (say because you live in a rural area), buy from a vendor
> that has a no-questions-asked returns policy. One thing I cannot
> stand, is a bad looking display.

Bad display? Ever used a CGA monitor with a .52 inch dot pitch? I used
to use these things like 18 hours per day. All modern displays beats
these things hands down.

If you are that bothered, be warned that the same make and model can
come with the same specs, but may be available with different
manufactured screens. They do this all of the time. Thus if you see one
in person and order one just like it, there are no guarantees it will
look the same.

--
Bill

"Barrabas" <self@here.org> wrote in message news:457c9eac@news.eftel.com
> Hello, my turn to add something. I originally wanted to
> purchase a 4:3 laptop for compatibility for the programs I had
> known for a number of years. I hate stretching on the screen.
> I gave up searching and decided to get a 4:3 external LCD
> monitor with the laptop, which I got for almost half price
> because it was a display model.
>
> I got a laptop with WSXGA (1680 X 1050). I was surprised to
> discover with ATI 1600 graphics that it had the option to
> maintain aspect ratio, so I could get a 4:3 display with pillar
> boxing. This allowed me to get a screen resolution similar to
> more computers when I wanted to compare web pages I made to a
> 4:3 screen. My screen also is not the glossy type. I think
> this is the better option, though I have only looked at glossy
> screens in stores. With the laptop screen, the brightness
> varies a lot with the time of day, with lighting and even how
> the eyes vary. This took a little bit of getting used to.
>
> In theory widescreen is just better because it allows a sense
> of more room, it seems more like how one prefers to look at
> something with their eyes. Because though screens have been 4:3
> for so long, compatibility with especially computer games
> becomes hit and miss.
>
> Whenever I attach my 4:3 1024 X 768 screen it seems more
> limited and less appealing to spend a lot of time looking at.
> But it is usually used for a second monitor.
>
> With a high resolution too, icons and text might appear
> smaller, I found it necessary to use large icons.
>
> My impression of glossy screen types, is that they are less
> prone to washing out in light. The problems with them are that
> you get a mirror effect, similar to looking in a pool of water.
> My impression of them also is that they tend to give a higher
> contrast. I don't like high contrast, I like to get a more even
> look. This has been an issue with television displays too for
> me.

Wow! I am so impressed as you nailed it right on Barrabas! Although I
disagree with you not liking contrast. As the more, the better they are
supposed to be (and higher is usually brighter too). Years ago I
remember ratios like 20:1 and 100:1. You probably would like them. But I
didn't notice things like the glossy screens have more contrast and is
better of not washing out in light. Of course the reflective look is
definitely noticable. And I don't know anybody who likes that except
women who wants to put on makeup. ;)

--
Bill