Netbooks With High-Res Displays– Are You Sure You Really Want One?
Image courtesy Liliputing
A prevalent sentiment often heard in discussions about the lowly netbook is the desire for a higher resolution display. For many, that measly 1024×600 display just doesn’t show enough on the screen at one time. The problem is that most netbooks are physically pretty darn small, and the little screens can get a bit strained when too much appears. I have used a lot of mobile devices with small screens, and I can tell you that using a small display with a high resolution screen can get tedious after a while.
Several netbook makers are offering high resolution displays as options for their products. These are typically 10-inch screens that display 1366×768, a very high resolution for such a small screen. Brad Linder of Liliputing has compared a couple of netbooks to demonstrate how much extra information appears on the higher resolution screen. He also admits that he has a problem using the high resolution display for extended periods, due to the small text on the 10-inch screen.
The first and foremost is that the text is so sharp that it’s hard for me to read from the netbook for more than 20 or 30 minutes without getting a headache. I’ve tried adjusting the dpi from 96 to 125 and that helps a bit, as does using large fonts and adjusting the zoom level in Firefox and other web browsers. But these changes are often inconsistent throughout the user interface and just result in making the experience of using the T1028X even more disorienting.
This affect is fairly common, so it’s a good idea to try a high-res netbook out if possible to make sure you can live with it. Be careful wishing for a higher resolution screen on your standard netbook; you just might get what you ask for.
Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.
High resolution screens can take some getting used to when they are less than 10″. I got quite used to a small high res monitor on my P1610 but everyone else who ever saw it said they couldn’t use it.
Having said that, the dpi settings in Windows 7 are much more powerful than anything that XP (or even Vista) had to offer and should make this a non-issue on netbooks. Icons and other UI elements scale much better to the adjusted dpi and you can set a custom dpi quickly and easily. You don’t even have to restart your PC after changing the dpi any more, you just need to log off and back in again.
How old is brad?
I definitely prefer hi-rez, but if 10″ is too small for some people the 11.6″ netbooks are quite small also (at least the Acer is) as they make more efficient use of the bezel.
How old is brad??
I definitely prefer hi-rez, but if 10″ is too small for some people the 11.6″ netbooks are quite small also (at least the Acer is) as they make more efficient use of the bezel.
I’m having no trouble with hi-res on the 11.6″ acer and the overall dimensions are pretty close to many of the 10″ netbooks due to a smaller bezel. Also, this thing is incredibly thin compared to say the 8.9″ acers.
I have a Fujitsu u810 with a 4.5″ screen at 1024 X 600.
The 600 cuts off some of the programs I run and either requires scrolling or the program will simply not run because to the short 600 instead of at least 768.
At least with a higher res screen you have an option to reset the screen to a lower res, whereas a lower screen you cannot set to higher.
I’m waiting for a high res, active digitizer tablet PC…
Oops.
10″ high res, active digitizer screen tablet PC
A lot of noise here as usual on this subject.
Obviously in theory the higher the res the better. You can keep actual size constant and just have everything resolve more preciesly.
Unfortunately in some legacy OSes this doesn’t happen because adjusting the so-called dpi setting gives inconsistent results. XP for example is inconsistent.
However with modern OSes (Vista, Win 7) this is no problem except on some badly written minor applications. Browsers also often don’t respect the dpi setting (incorrectly), but you can fix this by adjusting the zoom setting. Basically setting a higher dpi at the OS level and a zoom for the browser if necessary is all you need to do.
Between Ctrl-+ in Safari and Win 7′s superior (to XP) DPI controls I find my Vaio P and Acer Aspire One 751 to be useable.
*Pauses for a moment, then goes back to filtering through Google Reader on the Fujitsu U2010′s 1280×800 5.6″ screen.
If you love low-resolution displays, you are in for a world of fun. Buy a QVGA phone and save. Downgrade from 1024 pixels to 800.
But personally… hi res, please. The higher the better. I’ll start reconsidering when we get 9-inch screens at 1920×1200 pixels… maybe.
Love my high-res hp 2140
looking forward to that res in a tablet/touch in 2010
as long a w are not rust into a Depression (OH MY!)
oops typo
w should be we
rust should be thrust
Happy (mobile) computing all! and Good Night
My Sony TX 11.3″ screen runs at 1366 x 768 and has never been an issue for me even with middle age vision (and vision aids of course)! As others have said 11.3″ to 10″ isn’t that big a drop. At least starting with the higher resolution you get the choice to drop resolution to what is the normal netbook resolution today. After sometimes running into missing items including action buttons, 1366 x 768 is simply a netbook essential to me. I’m just waiting for the new Sony Netbook (with Windows 7 to have the essential Sleep mode) to arrive later this year and then my Lenovo S10 will be up for sale!
I think our Brad needs to see his optometrist ASAP!
Using a HP 2133 now for just on a year, I’m perfectly comfortable working all day on an 8.9″ 1280×800 display. Yes, it is small. Yes, it is high-res. And yes, it took me a while to get used to. But the fact that I can read 6-point text using Word on it clearly, play back 720p video in full-size, and display all the gear I would never fit on a 1024×600 screen makes it not only a crisp, sharp display, but a serious productivity tool. Indeed, moving up from 8.9″ size to 10″ should be considered a deluxe upgrade.
If 1366×768 is causing him trouble at 10″, he should stick to that $348 Toshiba 17″ at 1440×900 – perfect for grandpa! :)
It would be nice if the consumer can choose. This to me depends on the user if he would like hi res, or not. I personally do like hi res sometimes, but at other times I like the 1024x 600 res. I did adjust the fonts on my Sony P to be a little bigger and has worked great for me. On my Toshiba NB205 I’m running Windows 7 at 1024×600 with no problems. If I plan on working all day with any netbook, I just connect it to my 22″ LCD.
Only if you want to go blind
I agree that is a damn small screen to begin with
if they are paying more for higher res, i believe price range is getting closer to a entry level laptop, why stick with hetbook?
High res options are typically about $25 so the netbook is still a cheap beast.
JIFF: Because an entry level laptop weighs 6-7 pounds and has 2-3 hour battery life?
Not in the market in general, but in a market like this, a $500 netbook isn’t competing with a $500 laptop, it’s competing with a $1500-2000 ultraportable.
Anyway, I’m a PPI junkie. My current laptop has 171 PPI (2048×1536, 15.0″,) the new LCDs I’m getting are 204 PPI (3840×2400, 22.2″,) my phone is 286 PPI (640×480, 2.8″.) I can comfortably use about 300 PPI or so, without scaling, but I’m weird.
This was the one thing that caused me a headache when looking for a Netbook.
That 600 pixel height (or even less on some devices) was just too limiting for me.
But then along came the Samsung NC20 with it’s 12″ screen and a 1280 x 800 resolution. Linked with the VIA processor it is actually a viable alternative and even though I love what Intel have done with the Atom, in typical Netbook scenarios (browser based Web 2.0 stuff), the VIA is quicker.
Oddly though it is still a unique device with no direct competitor.
The 10.4″ 1024×768 screen of my HP TC1100 is good enough for me, but I’m not sure I would want to go much lower, either in size OR resolution. I’m strapped enough in terms of screen real estate already (especially in OneNote and slate mode); 1024×600 is just pushing it right over the line.
Also, 10″ is on the large side for a netbook, as I found out while looking in a local brick-and-mortar Staples. Some of the screens I saw made my TC1100 look pretty grandiose in comparison. (At least the keyboards were surprisingly touch-typable.)
holy crap. James, i would expect you, as a well known computer blogger, to know about this and help eliminate misinformation when you see it.
a high resolution + small screen = high DPI (or ppi). this is a GOOD thing. the reason “everything is small” when the resolution is high is because your DPI setting is not correct. if your screen is physically, say, 144 dpi but you have windows set to 96 dpi (the default), then of course things will be small. DPI is a screen calibration setting which tells the computer how many Dots are Per Inch. If your screen is miscalibrated, you will naturally have a “too small” (or too big) screen.
However, a high DPI display is NICE–when the setting is correct. icons and text are smooth and detailed, fonts are a good size… even 1 inch on on-screen rulers (like in Word) are 1 inch!!
The main problem of having a correctly set DPI is that 1 inch will be 1 inch, and on a 9 or 10 inch screen, that’s not much space. You can’t expect to fit as much stuff into a 10 inch screen as a 15 inch or 20 inch screen. And unfortunately, I think many GUI designers (at least for windows) don’t think about this factor, so you sometimes end up with dialog boxes that are too big for your screen.
Granted, high DPI is complete crap in XP because most programs aren’t written with support. New programs written in WPF (the new gui stuff since vista) will work at all DPIs automatically. Of course, most netbooks are still running XP, though that should hopefully change in a few months when win 7 is released.
Anyway, the main point here is: please, let’s not spread more disinformation about the woes of high-res screens making things “too small”. As it is, because of this misconception, it’s becoming harder and harder to get laptops with high dpi displays.
I understand that Windows Vista, 7, and OS X all handle DPI better than Windows XP. But you know what? Most netbooks ship with Windows XP installed. So pointing out that the problem is DPI and not the screen resolution doesn’t help the vast majority of potential netbook owners who have no plans to replace the operating system on the netbooks.
If Gigabyte, Dell, HP, or other companies that offer hi-res displays would take better steps to customize the UI so that you could read text without causing eye trauma, that’d be one thing. But for now, most of them are simply shipping vanilla Windows XP Home.
I think with the new smaller screens there is room for developing a “zoom” feature, similar to the iphone browser, in conjunction with high res displays.
For example, you could have a desktop as large as you want, say 1600×1200. If possible, it would be nice to have a display to support that. But when you double click a window, it should be able to SCALE that window to full screen, re-render it and make it readable.
Add an auto “zoom” for clickable buttons, and you are then able to have a large viewing area with the quick ability to zoom windows to make them readable as necessary.
The issue is still that the software running on said netbooks handle high resolutions abysmally poorly.
If you look at phones like a HTC Touch Pro2 or HD, you are looking at 800×480 on less than 4 inches. It works and looks amazingly good because the UI is sized (mostly, as well as Windows Mobile allows) to use all those pixels and display graphical elements at proper, easy to see sizes.
We don’t need lower resolution, we need for it to go as high as at all possible while maintaining battery life and GPU speed. Operating systems and applications, however, have to become independent of pixels and use an actual size range dependent on the size and resolution of the display.
Unfortunately we’re not there yet.
Problem with customization like that is, the pre-Vista GDI doesn’t really allow for that. You really need the WPF and DWM from at least Vista, and preferably 7… at which point, you might as well just run 7, because for as much as it would cost to modify XP to be suitable, you could shove a faster processor and bigger battery in the thing and just run Win7.
I’ve used a Fujitsu P7120 for the past three years with a 10.4 inch 1280×768 screen. Whenever I hand it to someone else to type something they are surprised at how small the screen is, and that I use it. I’m over 40, and most of the time it’s people under 30 that I’m handing it to.
I’ve been blessed with good eyesight, and no need for glasses. I guess most people aren’t in the same situation.
I have been watching the netbook craze, and while I don’t need a huge amount of processing power, I want to be able to view a large amount of information on the screen at the same time without scrolling.
I am constantly watching for a possible replacement for my laptop, as I originally paid close to $2k for this unit, and would rather not put that type of investment into a replacement unit. The main factors in my list are screen, weight, keyboard (including arrow and page up and down keys for easy page maneuvering) and battery life. A netbook with a screen that’s at least 768 pixels tall is very important.
Even remote administering many windows servers products requires a screen at least 1024×768 to be able to completely display the dialog boxes.
I have an Advent 4211 (MSI Wind clone) 10″ netbook for bedtime surfing – my 15″ Asus G1Sn is HEAVY and brings on the hot flushes :O
I would love to have “denser” text and the resolution is adjustable from 1024×600 t0 1024×768, however I can’t see how to adjust the overall size so it will fit into the screen – with a desktop monitor one has buttons for all sorts of adjustments.