How big a laptop screen is big enough?
Discussion
I have an old HP G72 which is a big old thing and has a huge screen but tbh it's wider than any website and so when viewing, I often get 'dead' space either side of the screen making it pretty redundant. I guess a new one does not need to be as wide but how wide is wide enough? I don't watch much on it so a big screen for viewing films etc is not important.
Frimley111R said:
I have an old HP G72 which is a big old thing and has a huge screen but tbh it's wider than any website and so when viewing, I often get 'dead' space either side of the screen making it pretty redundant. I guess a new one does not need to be as wide but how wide is wide enough? I don't watch much on it so a big screen for viewing films etc is not important.
Depends what you're doing with it and also how much you need to lug it around. I have one with a 17.3" screen which is also spec'd up to do gaming as well and it weighs a feckin ton. It's not something you want sitting on your legs or laps unless you enjoy cramp after a while.What is the "huge screen" on your G72 that you speak of? Sounds more like you don't have the native resolution set if you're getting black borders along each side.
A lot of people make the mistake of buying laptops with the highest resolution that's available and then complain about not being able to read the screen because the text is too small
. Frimley111R said:
I have an old HP G72 which is a big old thing and has a huge screen but tbh it's wider than any website and so when viewing, I often get 'dead' space either side of the screen making it pretty redundant. I guess a new one does not need to be as wide but how wide is wide enough? I don't watch much on it so a big screen for viewing films etc is not important.
In your browser press the CTRL and + keys together to zoom in (CTRL and - to zoom back out). This will scale up the page and use more of the width of the window.Pretty much all laptop screens are 16:9 aspect ratio (same as most TVs), but the dead space on the side of the screen is to do with the design of the page, the screen resolution (number of pixels) and the level of DPI scaling you're using (how much the page is being zoomed in - both Windows and web browsers can do this for the operating system as a whole or just web pages).
All that jazz said:
A lot of people make the mistake of buying laptops with the highest resolution that's available and then complain about not being able to read the screen because the text is too small .
These people need to learn about DPI scaling then - its existed in Windows since XP, although granted could cause issues with some application. It was improved a lot first in Vista and then massively in Windows 8.1. My ASUS UX305CA is a 13.3" laptop with a 3200x1800 screen, which I then use with 200% DPI scaling (it defaults to 250%) to give a virtual 1600x900 display but with much smoother edges to fonts, higher resolution images in modern applications which understand DPI scaling, etc. Really looks very nice indeed.. Edited by Thorburn on Wednesday 27th July 08:06
Topical for me - I'm looking to change laptop soonish but struggling between the 13" and 15" models.
I've got a low resolution 13" just now that's too cramped (1280x800) when used as intended. I've been running an external display more recently that's more than big enough (2560x1600).
I went into the shop yesterday but didn't feel a huge different in useable space between the 13" (1880x1050) and 15" (1920x1200) models despite having around 30% more area but it's hard to tell when just playing around in a shop.
Logic tells me to go for the 15", but the price differential is pretty big.
I've got a low resolution 13" just now that's too cramped (1280x800) when used as intended. I've been running an external display more recently that's more than big enough (2560x1600).
I went into the shop yesterday but didn't feel a huge different in useable space between the 13" (1880x1050) and 15" (1920x1200) models despite having around 30% more area but it's hard to tell when just playing around in a shop.
Logic tells me to go for the 15", but the price differential is pretty big.
Thorburn said:
These people need to learn about DPI scaling then - its existed in Windows since XP, although granted could cause issues with some application. It was improved a lot first in Vista and then massively in Windows 8.1. My ASUS UX305CA is a 13.3" laptop with a 3200x1800 screen, which I then use with 200% DPI scaling (it defaults to 250%) to give a virtual 1600x900 display but with much smoother edges to fonts, higher resolution images in modern applications which understand DPI scaling, etc. Really looks very nice indeed.
I really wish all the applications I use played nicely with DPI scaling. Oracle Virtualbox is driving me mad at the moment as the mouse pointer inside a windows 2003 host is tiny and there is nothing I can do about it apparently. Similarly a couple of other applications with tiny dialogue boxes etc.Edited by Thorburn on Wednesday 27th July 08:06
Other than that I completely agree (15" screen @ 2880x1620 and 200% scaling usually, but currently using a client laptop with 13" screen @1366x768 which is hard going)
I'm currently running a surface pro 3 which has a 13" screen and a very sharp native resolution of 2160 X 1440. Although depending upon what I'm doing it can sometimes be a bit of a tight squeeze on screen real estate it does work fine.
But after running nothing less than a 17" screen for 8/9 years prior to picking up the surface it did take some adjustment. There are times I do miss the extra real estate, but the difference in weight and portability more than makes up for it. Carrying my previous Dell Inspiron 17" around all day was becoming a bit tiresome. Especially around Uni when I was moving lecture rooms every other hour.
Although I have adjusted to the smaller screen, the one thing I really do miss about the 17" is having a full numpad on the keyboard.
But after running nothing less than a 17" screen for 8/9 years prior to picking up the surface it did take some adjustment. There are times I do miss the extra real estate, but the difference in weight and portability more than makes up for it. Carrying my previous Dell Inspiron 17" around all day was becoming a bit tiresome. Especially around Uni when I was moving lecture rooms every other hour.
Although I have adjusted to the smaller screen, the one thing I really do miss about the 17" is having a full numpad on the keyboard.
Just bought a 17 inch Acer from Currys
Replaced a 5 year old Acer 15 inch that died
Nice HD screen and decent sound. £499 well spent in my view
I simply use it as a desktop in my home office. Except last week I did a rare presentation away from home and I didn't have a bag/case to put it in
Replaced a 5 year old Acer 15 inch that died
Nice HD screen and decent sound. £499 well spent in my view
I simply use it as a desktop in my home office. Except last week I did a rare presentation away from home and I didn't have a bag/case to put it in
The display scaling in Windows (not tried 10) isn't great to be honest. Works well enough up to 125%, but trying to force it to adapt between different displays doesn't seem to work properly, and scaling beyond 125% seems to cause blurry text in many apps, including even some Windows apps and the OS itself (Device Manager, just to give one example, can't cope with scaling higher than 125%).
Its still much easier to run at 100 / 125% for the best results. This means in some cases choosing a lower resolution screen.
Apple OSX does not have the same problem as it is all rendered as vector rather than scaled bitmap so can look good even at very high scaling. BTW I am not particular fan of Apple, never owned a Mac in my entire life! Have used them though and take an interest.
To answer the OPs question, I have a 14" Ultrabook at work with a 1080P screen, and I use it at 100% scaling, and its just about fine, 125% would probably be more comfortable, but then UI elements are overly large on the 24" monitor I use when its docked, and its not a problem as my eyesight is fine. Anything from 13-15" @ 1080P would be perfectly usable. You can get much higher of course, but as I say, Windows handling of it has not been the best - does anyone know if Win 10 is any better?
Its still much easier to run at 100 / 125% for the best results. This means in some cases choosing a lower resolution screen.
Apple OSX does not have the same problem as it is all rendered as vector rather than scaled bitmap so can look good even at very high scaling. BTW I am not particular fan of Apple, never owned a Mac in my entire life! Have used them though and take an interest.
To answer the OPs question, I have a 14" Ultrabook at work with a 1080P screen, and I use it at 100% scaling, and its just about fine, 125% would probably be more comfortable, but then UI elements are overly large on the 24" monitor I use when its docked, and its not a problem as my eyesight is fine. Anything from 13-15" @ 1080P would be perfectly usable. You can get much higher of course, but as I say, Windows handling of it has not been the best - does anyone know if Win 10 is any better?
I'm guessing you are using Windows 7?
Windows 7 has two scaling modes - 125% is XP mode by default, 150% is Vista mode by default. Because so few devices used 150% scaling that many developers didn't know it existed and never tested with it.
Windows 8.1 (and 10) standardises how scaling works across all the different scaling levels, and is a lot more robust.
Windows 7 has two scaling modes - 125% is XP mode by default, 150% is Vista mode by default. Because so few devices used 150% scaling that many developers didn't know it existed and never tested with it.
Windows 8.1 (and 10) standardises how scaling works across all the different scaling levels, and is a lot more robust.
TameRacingDriver said:
The display scaling in Windows (not tried 10) isn't great to be honest.....
.... does anyone know if Win 10 is any better?
Windows 8 was slightly better than 7. 10 is massively better than 8..... does anyone know if Win 10 is any better?
We have loads of very old software used internally and always had to buy laptops that could be run at 100%, so typically 1400x900 on 14" and 1920x1080 on 15.6".
Windows 10 means we're now happy with 4k laptops.
alock said:
Windows 8 was slightly better than 7. 10 is massively better than 8.
DPI scaling in 8 is literally the same as 7, they overhauled it in 8.1 and this is exactly the same in 10. I made quite a bit of money rewriting some applications first for Vista mode in 7/8 and then adding in support for 8.1 scaling a year later.
Thorburn said:
I'm guessing you are using Windows 7?
Windows 7 has two scaling modes - 125% is XP mode by default, 150% is Vista mode by default. Because so few devices used 150% scaling that many developers didn't know it existed and never tested with it.
Windows 8.1 (and 10) standardises how scaling works across all the different scaling levels, and is a lot more robust.
Windows 8.1 at work. Windows 7 has two scaling modes - 125% is XP mode by default, 150% is Vista mode by default. Because so few devices used 150% scaling that many developers didn't know it existed and never tested with it.
Windows 8.1 (and 10) standardises how scaling works across all the different scaling levels, and is a lot more robust.
There are two modes of using DPI, one is to "choose the same scaling for all screens", and for that 125% works perfectly, 150% results in blurred fonts in many windows. The other mode, which supposedly lets Windows decide for each screen, basically doesn't work as expected. Unfortunately most of our users have to use an ancient 17" 1280x1024 display as a second screen to laptops with 13" 1080P displays. Windows simply cannot cope in this scenario. One screen has UI elements that are too big, the other, too small. Somewhere inbetween results in the blurring.
I realise that this is mostly the fault of badly coded apps, but also some OS elements do this (typical MS and their unfinished products).
Its also a pain, because I'd like to use my laptop panel at 125% but at that size it looks HUGE on my monitor. To switch between them, I have to sign out, which is rarely ever convenient. Hence I just put up with it at 100%.
I had to stay away from 4K as it would have cost far too much for the relatively casual use it would have got for gaming / movies....
I went for a 34" 2560x1080 at home, despite the whole internet telling me that the DPI sucks, and it looks horrible, it actually looks fine to me at 100% (I own a QHD Samsung smartphone so I know what sharp looks like), and is much more GPU friendly
Getting OT here, as you were...
I went for a 34" 2560x1080 at home, despite the whole internet telling me that the DPI sucks, and it looks horrible, it actually looks fine to me at 100% (I own a QHD Samsung smartphone so I know what sharp looks like), and is much more GPU friendly
Getting OT here, as you were...
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff