Dell Precision Laptop Will Have 3200x1800 display

[drewhoo]

Plowing through pages upon pages of machine created Excel worksheets makes high res a thing sent from heaven. All you gamers please kindly stfu. Thanks to your whining about unnecessariness, these high res laptops have been long overdue.

Word. I could pee my pants thinking about pulling up Illustrator or Premiere Pro on a laptop with that resolution. I'm on an aging MacBook Pro right now and I'm looking out for a replacement. This is the first windows machine I've heard of that I'd consider getting.

If Dell really offers UHDish resolution, an i7, 512GB of flash storage, and Quadro for <$2000, they can have my money now.

Seems I hallucinated a 3800.

I feel like I'm always hallucinating numbers. Also I haven't seen anything defined in arcseconds since my astronomy classes in college.

 

[back_by_demand]

Funny, but when Apple cranks up the resolution it's magical, when someone else does it people find a way to bitch and moan - sniff sniff, smells like fanboi in here

 

[JPNpower]

Even funnier is how people still manage to find a way to trash Apple, no matter what it does.

 

[saymi]

I was willing to buy an apple just for retina display becuase I need it so much for my work. Now if there will a PC competitor why not I think about it? I am looking for more competent brands in future.

 

[InvalidError]

Funny, but when Apple cranks up the resolution it's magical, when someone else does it people find a way to bitch and moan - sniff sniff, smells like fanboi in here

Overkill resolution is overkill regardless of who makes it.

I just wish 1080p was a standard resolution at 15-17" but most mid-range laptops still ship with 900p or lower.

 

[p05esto]

I Hope they still offer a 17" version (or higher). Pixels are fine and all, but the human eye still needs a physically bigger screen to do serious work. Size is FAR more important to video editors, designers, developers than pixel density. My 27" screen feels a little small and my 17" laptop is about right. Just a reminder Dell, it's not a one-size-fits-all-world.

 

[antilycus]

as soon as I read INTEL, i hit the back button.

 

[vinhn]

Funny, but when Apple cranks up the resolution it's magical, when someone else does it people find a way to bitch and moan - sniff sniff, smells like fanboi in here

Overkill resolution is overkill regardless of who makes it.

I just wish 1080p was a standard resolution at 15-17" but most mid-range laptops still ship with 900p or lower.

I don't get how you are saying it is overkill. Maybe you don't need it but some others do. The hassle of working where multiple data is needed to be opened at once is annoying if you have a small resolution screen.

 

[saymi]

I was willing to buy an apple just for retina display becuase I need it so much for my work. Now if there will a PC competitor why not I think about it? I am looking for more competent brands in future.

 

[10tacle]

Awesome! I miss my 1920x1200 Dell 17" E1705 which screen gave up the ghost after 6 years. That was a $1700 laptop. I'd gladly pay $2k for the next level up. My replacement 17" currently, a $400 HP G7 series, only has 1600x900 resolution. I'm ready to move up.

 

[InvalidError]

I don't get how you are saying it is overkill. Maybe you don't need it but some others do. The hassle of working where multiple data is needed to be opened at once is annoying if you have a small resolution screen.

Having more pixels on-screen is nice but you do need to be able to read it without straining your eyes if you are going to be looking at it on a regular basis. 2.5X as much text and numbers on a 60% smaller screen means ~1/6th the font and icon area sizes. For most people, this would likely feel unusable without setting Windows in high-DPI mode or using individual applications' zoom feature(s) to make things large enough to be readable. Once that is done, most of the extra resolution ends up going towards making fonts and graphics look (slightly) better rather than displaying extra information.

I have seen IBM's 10" ThinkPad with 1440x900 display in stores many years ago and reading standard dialogs on it felt like the screen was gouging my eyes out with everything being about 1/3rd the area size of a normal laptop/desktop display. I wouldn't work on that on an on-going basis without re-scaling the UI to a more comfortable size.

While that sort of resolution may be useful for some applications like CAD/CAM (that laptop has a Quadro) where thinner and cleaner lines are always very useful, for the vast majority of people it is completely overkill on such a small screen.

 

[JPNpower]

You are looking more at the "tree" than the "forest". For many of us who need a good view of the big picture, this high res is awesomeness squared. And why are you talking about "most people" when this is a friggin $2k laptop? Also, there is a reason why this is a Pricision, and not a XPS or Inspiron. For "most people" who use serious laptops though, high res is not overkill

 

[ldfrmc]

See this article about what you "get" from what you "see" and where you "sit:"
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

The 3200 X 1800 resolution is important for scientific applications like precision manufacturing quality control (inspection) and, at the other end, astronomy.

Video making and viewing? No so important. Depends on where you sit (distance from screen and screen size) when viewing.

i.e. 4K video is great to watch - in a movie theater, but not on a 15 to 24 inch screen. And, the processing power needed for higher resolution video (shooting or viewing) is not worth the expense unless your screen is really big and you sit back at least 4 feet from the screen.