Buying a laptop.. need a good display.. help me!

Snaggy wrote:
On Jan 5, 7:52 pm, Daniel Silevitch wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:17:43 -0800 (PST), Snaggy wrote:
I'm buying a laptop and need advice for a display.
Max budget around 2000 dollars, pc (not apple mac)... I'll use it
mainly for photography and image editing, it's meant to replace the
desktop therefore I need a good display which can be calibrated
decently.
I know the latest mac displays (led backlit) are quite good on this
side, but as I told you I can't buy a mac.
What about the Dell inspiron 1720 with the High Resolution, glossy
widescreen 17.0 inch display (1920 x 1200)
Out of curiousity, is your objection to the Mac in the hardware or the
software? If the latter, a MacBook Pro with XP installed could be an
option.

-dms

I have no objections personally, i mean I'd love a mac, simply the
person for whom I'm buying this computer won't ever hear of it...
dunno why

Maybe he has a 'history' with Apple, as many of us older users do.

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 08:31:16 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:


Some of the widescreens have 19200x1050, or more, screens. More than
enough resolution to show your images, and display two screens of
internet data at once.

That really is a widescreen - say 10 inches high and 14 foot wide. :-)

--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

In article ,
says...

Some of the widescreens have 19200x1050, or more,

WOW
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , cral.elllwood2
@bt.openworld.com says...
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 08:31:16 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:


Some of the widescreens have 19200x1050, or more, screens. More than
enough resolution to show your images, and display two screens of
internet data at once.

That really is a widescreen - say 10 inches high and 14 foot wide. :-)

Ideal for use in a plane ;-)
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:13:23 -0800, nospam
wrote:

In article , EAL
wrote:

Why would anyone buy a widescreen except to watch widescreen movies?
Wide screen means less height, a slit-eyed narrow display. These
displays are cramped vertically. Don't you ever shoot portraits?

i often shoot portraits, and with a widescreen display, there's plenty
of room for tool palettes or even two images side by side for
comparison purposes. the extra space does not go to waste. plus, one
can always rotate the display into portrait mode.

Wide screens aren't much wider than the normal variety of screen, but
they are a lot skinnier, giving less height.

Case in point, on Lenovo laptops with 14" displays, the wide screen
models give 1440 pixels, compared to 1400 for the normal SXGA+
screens. That's less than 3% more width. But the wide variant has 900
vertical pixels against 1050 for the normal. That's 150 less pixels in
height. The normal screen provides almost 17% more vertical pixels.

Of course you can do side-by-side work with any screen that has good
resolution, but we do many different kinds of tasks on our machines,
and the regular screen for me is more practical in general.

Ed

In article , EAL
wrote:

Wide screens aren't much wider than the normal variety of screen, but
they are a lot skinnier, giving less height.

some a
http://gizmodo.com/341413/alienware-...like-its-from-
another-planet

2880 x 900

Jurgen Exner wrote:
EAL wrote:
Why would anyone buy a widescreen except to watch widescreen movies?

Very simple: to be able to see two documents side by side for
cross-reference without overlap. Very convenient!

Since documents are usually longer than they are tall, in a roughly
portrait-type format, then putting them side by side simply generates
a roughly landscape format image. In other words, to see two documents
side by side you only need the ordinary format of screen, just
provided it has enough resolution. Widescreen allows you to see three
documents side by side.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On Jan 6, 6:32*am, Ron Hunter wrote:
Snaggy wrote:
On Jan 5, 7:52 pm, Daniel Silevitch wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:17:43 -0800 (PST), Snaggy wrote:
I'm buying a laptop and need advice for a display.
Max budget around 2000 dollars, pc (not apple mac)... I'll use it
mainly for photography and image editing, it's meant to replace the
desktop therefore I need a good display which can be calibrated
decently.
I know the latest mac displays (led backlit) are quite good on this
side, but as I told you I can't buy a mac.
What about the Dell inspiron 1720 with the High Resolution, glossy
widescreen 17.0 inch display (1920 x 1200)
Out of curiousity, is your objection to the Mac in the hardware or the
software? If the latter, a MacBook Pro with XP installed could be an
option.

-dms

I have no objections personally, i mean I'd love a mac, simply the
person for whom I'm buying this computer won't ever hear of it...
dunno why

Maybe he has a 'history' with Apple, as many of us older users do.

I have a "history" with Apple and wouldn't hesitate to buy another
one. In fact, most Apple customers are repeat buyers. Not that there
is anything "wrong" with other brands.

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article ,
lid says...
In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

In article ,
says...

If you are serious about image editing, you need as much RAM as the
laptop/OS can use.
Sure, but most notebook computers are limited to 2-3 GB max, or do you
know of a (Windows) notebook which will take more than that?
santa rosa chipset based computers should be able to take 4 gig of ram.

Anything with 8, 12 or even more GB of RAM? Just one GB more of RAM
doesn't sound that exciting.

4 gigs is the limit of a 32 bit Windows OS. If you get a 64 bit OS it
will support lots of memory but on a desktop, now around 32 gigs of ram.
More ram is good not because Photoshop CS3 is optimized for 64 bits, but
because other programs will not drain the memory usage and there will be
far fewer disk writes when the processes runs virtually in the extra ram

But haven't heard about Mbs for laptops with over 4 gigs of ram yet and
they will be frightfully expensive.