No, no, no. This is always an annoying cost-cutting measure. If you're gonna have a BD drive, then show all of it off with a 1080p display. Especially once you get to 17".
tbh I quite like the fact that the res is not 1080p, it means the GPU would stand a better chance at driving games at native res. At the size, your not going to see the difference in the detail that 1080 would give anyways.
@Jones @cjb110 - it's not about gaming or movies, it's simply about having far more screen retail estate. Personally I couldn't live with anything less than 1920 x 1080 on a 17in screen. Then again, I can't live without 1680 x 1050 minimum on a 15in screen so I'm probably unusual!
I don't buy that you can't tell the difference - I've seen the 720p/1080p video difference with my own eyes. That's not boasting about fantastic eyesight either. It's simply because your head is pressed up against a computer display in a way that you probably don't do with regular television. At that distance, 17 and 18 inch displays may look just as big as when you're sitting on your couch across your room from a 32-50 inch telly.
I understand the "real estate" argument - just has never been an issue for me from a whole manner of perspectives from the home music production I do to with software like Sonar to the constant spreadsheet and accounts based production software like Sage I use at work, not to mention more basic funtionality in word processing and what not.
GoldenGuy, Im not sure what movies/videos you are watching but I just cant tell the difference - and my eyesight is excellent! I can imagine maybe the most recent movies like Star Trek or 2012 having some differences but the older films I tend to watch just wouldnt benefit much from the extra resolution.
Im a hypocrite anyway in that I have 1080p displays for my laptop and TV but I dont really see much of a difference from my older displays. Black and colour depths/brightness are more important to me as well as things such as how well the backlighting in laptop displays is. Id also argue that you dont see much of a difference in 720-1080p in TVs in the 40 inch display range either.
It comes down to use at the end of the day. I can imagine a higher resolution being a great benefit in certain uses but for every day use? It's not that big a deal to me.
@Jones - the screen real estate argument is simple: I need more space in order to have multiple windows open. Given that - in journalism - you pretty much live with a word processor open that's a hefty chunk of the screen gone.
That said, I can't see a lot of difference between 720p and 1080p content on a laptop - or even most TVs for that matter. I think other elements such as black levels and motion handling are far more important than resolution. Same goes for cameras and the ridiculous megapixel race.
@Gordon- I definately see where you are coming from from the journalism perspective and I agree that more resolution would make a huge difference in a working environment.
I cheated a little when at work. We use 15" laptops at all times and I complained about the native resolution being too tiny with larger resolutions looking blurry and got myself a monitor which I use as a second display. I suppose that's why I dont have big desktop/resolution issues at work then!!!
Well speaking of examples, one of the best off the top of my head is where George Clooney is staring at a departures board in Up in the Air - there is a marked difference in the legibility of the destinations and times.
@Gordon
Sure lots more things matter besides resolution. If we're talking TVs then black levels (white levels too), consistent backlighting, motion blur handling and ***input lag*** {tap, tap, tap}...
I’m fairly sick and tired of hearing the term full HD for laptop and computer screen displays. Who the hell wants it? What I want is 8:5 aspect ratio (or 16:10 if you prefer) not 16:9! 8:5 aspect ratio is a much better option for the vast majority of folk who have no interest in watching Blu-ray movies on a laptop or desk top computer for that matter. (Great for a telly, I agree.) I blame the reviewers for pushing this format with the ghastly term ‘full HD’! For a computer screen, give me 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 any day of the week over so called ‘full HD’. For a start 3:2 photos don’t actually fill a 16:10 screen but they look a sight better than they do on a 16:9 screen! There are umpteen other reasons why 16:10 is a good compromise between the old 4:3 and 16:9.
And another thing nobody ever seems to mention – a friend of mine recently demonstrated his all singing all dancing new ‘full HD’ telly with a Blu-ray movie that was shot in cinemascope aspect ratio (21:9) and there was massive black portions at the top and bottom of the telly - what’s all that about? Lots of DVD and Blu-ray films seem to be in this mindless format! A complete waste of real estate on a 16:9 telly!
By the way a little bird told me that Samsung have realised their mistake and are in the process of bringing out Windows 7 64-bit models of the R580 and R780 later this month, so I’d hang fire and wait till you can actually use all that 4GB of ram!
We're sorry. We were unable to report abuse at this time.
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try resubmitting your abuse report again later.
Comment is too long. Enter 500 characters or less.
Comments
User reviews
There are currently no reviews for this product.
Read more reviews >
To add your own review log in or sign up