Wanted: 17" WUXGA display on notebook that is not an enter..

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Anyone know if there is such a notebook computer?

I've looked, via reviews on the web, at HP zd7000 and zd8000 and the
Dell 9200.

I want the 17" 1680x1050 wide-screen to run Photoshop. No interest in
TV, nor movie making, nor in paying for such hardware and software. Do
need two gigs of RAM and a 100 gig hard drive, DVD/CD burner, Ethernet
jack, some USB2 ports and a Firewire port, a cardbus slot and WinXP
Pro.

Any suggestion is welcome.

--David
 
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

For Photoshop, I'd look at the 1600x1200 displays. Why would you want a
wide display. You LOSE resolution.

Tom
"David Ellis" <scribblemonger@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3pket0lb9eq0pg0oiucg5i9h7puv83mov1@4ax.com...
> Anyone know if there is such a notebook computer?
>
> I've looked, via reviews on the web, at HP zd7000 and zd8000 and the
> Dell 9200.
>
> I want the 17" 1680x1050 wide-screen to run Photoshop. No interest in
> TV, nor movie making, nor in paying for such hardware and software. Do
> need two gigs of RAM and a 100 gig hard drive, DVD/CD burner, Ethernet
> jack, some USB2 ports and a Firewire port, a cardbus slot and WinXP
> Pro.
>
> Any suggestion is welcome.
>
> --David
 
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

My question exactly. Why a 16:9 aspect ratio for Photoshop? Makes no sense.
HH

"Tom Scales" <tom@scalesfamily.com> wrote in message
news:IsQBd.8435$7N4.1532@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> For Photoshop, I'd look at the 1600x1200 displays. Why would you want a
> wide display. You LOSE resolution.
>
> Tom
> "David Ellis" <scribblemonger@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3pket0lb9eq0pg0oiucg5i9h7puv83mov1@4ax.com...
>> Anyone know if there is such a notebook computer?
>>
>> I've looked, via reviews on the web, at HP zd7000 and zd8000 and the
>> Dell 9200.
>>
>> I want the 17" 1680x1050 wide-screen to run Photoshop. No interest in
>> TV, nor movie making, nor in paying for such hardware and software. Do
>> need two gigs of RAM and a 100 gig hard drive, DVD/CD burner, Ethernet
>> jack, some USB2 ports and a Firewire port, a cardbus slot and WinXP
>> Pro.
>>
>> Any suggestion is welcome.
>>
>> --David
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Thanks for the heads up on this topic, but I don't understand the
resolution loss. Is "resolution" something other than total pixels?
1600*1200=1,920,000
1920*1200=2,304,000
--David

>My question exactly. Why a 16:9 aspect ratio for Photoshop? Makes no sense.
>HH
>
>"Tom Scales" <tom@scalesfamily.com> wrote in message
>news:IsQBd.8435$7N4.1532@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> For Photoshop, I'd look at the 1600x1200 displays. Why would you want a
>> wide display. You LOSE resolution.
>>
>> Tom
>> "David Ellis" <scribblemonger@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3pket0lb9eq0pg0oiucg5i9h7puv83mov1@4ax.com...
>>> Anyone know if there is such a notebook computer?
>>>
>>> I've looked, via reviews on the web, at HP zd7000 and zd8000 and the
>>> Dell 9200.
>>>
>>> I want the 17" 1680x1050 wide-screen to run Photoshop. No interest in
>>> TV, nor movie making, nor in paying for such hardware and software. Do
>>> need two gigs of RAM and a 100 gig hard drive, DVD/CD burner, Ethernet
>>> jack, some USB2 ports and a Firewire port, a cardbus slot and WinXP
>>> Pro.
>>>
>>> Any suggestion is welcome.
>>>
>>> --David
>>
>>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

David Ellis wrote:
> Thanks for the heads up on this topic, but I don't understand the
> resolution loss. Is "resolution" something other than total pixels?
> 1600*1200=1,920,000
> 1920*1200=2,304,000
> --David
>
>> My question exactly. Why a 16:9 aspect ratio for Photoshop? Makes no
>> sense. HH
>>
>> "Tom Scales" <tom@scalesfamily.com> wrote in message
>> news:IsQBd.8435$7N4.1532@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>> For Photoshop, I'd look at the 1600x1200 displays. Why would you
>>> want a wide display. You LOSE resolution.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>> "David Ellis" <scribblemonger@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3pket0lb9eq0pg0oiucg5i9h7puv83mov1@4ax.com...
>>>> Anyone know if there is such a notebook computer?
>>>>
>>>> I've looked, via reviews on the web, at HP zd7000 and zd8000 and
>>>> the Dell 9200.
>>>>
>>>> I want the 17" 1680x1050 wide-screen to run Photoshop. No interest
>>>> in TV, nor movie making, nor in paying for such hardware and
>>>> software. Do need two gigs of RAM and a 100 gig hard drive, DVD/CD
>>>> burner, Ethernet jack, some USB2 ports and a Firewire port, a
>>>> cardbus slot and WinXP Pro.
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestion is welcome.
>>>>
>>>> --David

Widescreen is in the ratio 16 wide by 9 high. Standard is 4 wide by 3
high. The screen size is measured across the diagonal and the ratio is
18.35 for widescreen and 5.0 for standard. So you have a choice between
a 15 inch widescreen or a 15 inch standard screen where these are
diagonal dimensions. The widescreen height will be 15/18.35 x 9 = 7.36
inches; the width will be 15/18.35 x 16 = 13.08 inches. The standard
screen will be 15/5 x 3 = 9 inches; the width will be 15/5 x 4 = 12
inches.

Standard 15 inch screen h = 9, w = 12 ; UXGA res = 1600 x 1200
Widescreen 15 inch h = 7.36 w = 13.08. WUXGA res = 1920 x 1200

So the same size photo on a standard screen, compared to a widescreen
will have a physical ratio of 9/7.36 = 1.22 or almost 25% larger on a
standard screen of the same diagonal measurement as a widescreen.

The move to widescreen is only predicated on the cost of the screen: in
the 15.4 inch widescreen, 7 widesceens per sheet of LCD can be made
while only 4 standard 15 inch screens can be made. This is a huge
manuafacturing savings and is the reason that laptop prices are falling
dramatically.

Going back to the math, the 15 inch widescreen is actually the
dimensional equivalent of a standard screen 7.4 inches high, or 7.4/3 x
5 = 12.3 inches diagonally. There are laptops with 12 inch screens in
standard format; these are difficult for photo work as even a short
photo session will confirm.

Q