Why are laptop LCDs more advanced?

larkin

Gawd
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
907
4 years ago i got my hp omnibook xe440 with a 15' lcd and native 1440x1050 resoltuion. You would be hard pressed to find even a 17' that did that or higher resoltion. Alienware's new laptop is 17' lcd with a 19200x1200 native. Why is it that I can't find a desktop pannel with that res until 23''?

Also, since TFT technology has been on laptops i dont recall ever seeing image stabalizing settings, such as moving the image to the left or up etc. The settings that all LCD monitors had before the recent change from analog to DVI. So this means that laptops have been using a digital signal for their pannels for the past decade?

So.. Why do laptops:
- have higher resolutions on smaller pannels than can be found for desktops
- have digital displays long before desktops had them available.

The general consensus is that laptops are a year or so (at least 6 months) behind the desktop technology in terms of vid cards, processors, hd, everything. Is laptop LCD technology actually ahead of desktops and why couldn't a manufacture have brought, say, a digital 15'' 1440x1050 to desktop market years ago? Why are new desktop displays still stuck at 1280x1024 (namely, the 19 inch offerings)?
 
I wouldn't say laptop LCDs are more advanced. They do have higher resolution but that's about it. In my opinion, laptop LCDs are generally far worse than desktop LCDs when it comes to color reproduction, contrast, viewing angles and response time.
 
I agree. After staring at a 15" 1680x1050 on my laptop the last 2 years i wanted to get at least that when building a desktop. In the end i bit the bullet and bought a 2405FPW to get the size and resolution increase that i felt was worth an upgrade. But with 24" at 1920x1200 it still feels like the resolution is too small for the screen size. If i could have gotten a 19" or 20" at 1920x1200 i would have done that.

The Westy 37" must feel like 800x600
 
Notebook LCD's are more advanced because the manufacturers can squeeze in the high cost of making them in the final retail price. The consumer will be "wowed" by the small size, portability etc. of the notebook and won't really care shelling out a few more greenbacks to get what they want. Case in point? This little gem. It has a tiny 11.1" screen, but the LCD is LED-backlighted instead of the regular CCFL tubes, and it has a whopping (for that screen size at least) 1366x768 resolution. Once you tease a potential customer with something like that, they'll pay whatever you ask. ;)
 
Why spend crazy money on a small LCD with high res when you can just get a BIG LCD with high res?
 
matt fury said:
Why spend crazy money on a small LCD with high res when you can just get a BIG LCD with high res?
Cause you cant carry around a big lcd to your next appointment, or college class.
 
I guess it depends on who is using it.

Personally I find 1280x1024 the perfect res on my 19" display and having a 19200x1200 resolution would be unreadable for me.

I have to admit it is a bit of a mystery as to why they are cramming this kind of resolution into laptop LCDs but honestly most laptop LCDs i've seen arn't as nice as a decent desktop LCD.
 
Roger said:
I wouldn't say laptop LCDs are more advanced. They do have higher resolution but that's about it. In my opinion, laptop LCDs are generally far worse than desktop LCDs when it comes to color reproduction, contrast, viewing angles and response time.
and what do MOST loptops have to power those? Hmmm? the one i got for $1200 has a native res of 1280x768 (widescreen) and only has a ATI mobility 9000, now granted, there are other lappys that have like a GO6800 or even GO7800, but those arnt to common and cost a WHOLE lot more.
 
jayx9 said:
Cause you cant carry around a big lcd to your next appointment, or college class.

I meant for your desk. As in, who cares if you can get a 15" with 30000x200000 res for your laptop when you can have a 25" for the same price at home.
 
Back
Top