Where are all the laptops with full HD screens?

Rsaeire

I was looking online to see what laptops are currently available and have noticed something very odd; where are all the laptops with full HD screens gone?

It seems as though technology is regressing, since a resolution of 1600 x 900 appears to be the maximum resolution available on most laptops; even those with 17" screens. While there are some models available with either a 1920 x 1080 or 1920 x 1200 resolution, these seem to be few and far between and much less prevalent than before. Not only this, but graphics options appear to be nonexistent, with Nvidia being the graphics solution of choice amongst manufacturers, especially on the higher resolution laptops; which I find infuriating as I prefer ATI graphics solutions. The only laptops that fit the bill were the Studio XPS 16 and the Precision M6500, but the former overheats while the latter is too expensive.

I've listed the laptops I've looked at from Dell, HP, Samsung, Sony and Toshiba below:


Dell

• Dell Inspiron 17 (17.3" 1600 x 900)
• Dell Studio 17 (17.3" 1600 x 900)
• Dell Studio XPS 16 (16" 1920 x 1080, overheats)
• Dell Vostro 1720 (17" 1440 x 900, Nvidia graphics)
• Dell Vostro 3700 (17.3" 1366 x 768)
• Dell Precision M6500 (17" 1920 x 1200, too expensive)

HP

• G72 (17.3" 1600 x 900)
• Pavillion DV7 (17.3" 1600 x 900)
• Pavillion DV8 (18.4" 1920 x 1080, Nvidia graphics)

Samsung

• Samsung R720 (17.3" 1600 x 900)
• Samsung R730 (17.3" 1600 x 900)
• Samsung R780 (17.3" 1600 x 900)

Sony

• Sony E Series (17" 1920 x 1080, Nvidia graphics)
• Sony F Series (16.4" 1920 x 1080, Nvidia graphics)

Toshiba

• Toshiba Satellite L550 (17.3" 1600 x 900)
• Toshiba Satellite L555 (17.3" 1600 x 900)
• Toshiba Satellite P500 (18.4" 1680 x 945)
• Toshiba Qosmio G50 (18.4" 1920 x 1080, Nvidia graphics)
• Toshiba Qosmio X300 (17" 1680 x 1050, Nvidia graphics)
• Toshiba Qosmio X500 (18.4" 1920 x 1080, Nvidia graphics)

Why do you prefer ATI graphics? Nvidia make superior mobile graphics solutions.
Full hd, 1080p, 1920 x 1080 is totally wasted on a screen as small as 17" even if you are a couple of inches away the pixel matrix will be indistinguishabley the same as a panel at 1600 x 900. Win7 was designed to be optimal at 1920 x 1080 on screens @ 22" or above. The ui design is compromised on a smaller screen running 1080p. Fair enough you gain extra sceen real estate with the higher reolution but realistically if 1600 x 1080 or 1600 x 900 doesnt offer enough space then a mobile solution isnt optimal for your needs.

Rsaeire

david7536 wrote: »

Why do you prefer ATI graphics? Nvidia make superior mobile graphics solutions.
Full hd, 1080p, 1920 x 1080 is totally wasted on a screen as small as 17" even if you are a couple of inches away the pixel matrix will be indistinguishabley the same as a panel at 1600 x 900. Win7 was designed to be optimal at 1920 x 1080 on screens @ 22" or above. The ui design is compromised on a smaller screen running 1080p. Fair enough you gain extra sceen real estate with the higher reolution but realistically if 1600 x 1080 or 1600 x 900 doesnt offer enough space then a mobile solution isnt optimal for your needs.

I prefer ATI graphics solutions, not only because I am more familiar with them and find they offer better performance than their rivals, but because their driver support is better and more frequent. This is in addition to my distaste with Nvidia's policy of rebadging old graphics cards and releasing them as brand new models.

With regard to resolution, 1920 x 1080 or 1920 x 1200 is what I prefer as it offers a larger working space, obviously, in comparison to lower resolutions. This is especially of benefit when using programs that make use of all available viewing space, e.g. Dreamweaver, Photoshop etc.

L31mr0d

OP, the reason is you fit into a niche market. There are very few people that want those kinds of resolutions on the move. At home, most people would have a monitor that they could connect their laptop to for desktop use.

As you've shown though, you do have options, it's not like there are no laptops out there for your needs. Personally, and I'd say I'd fit your average laptop user, I prefer the extra battery life from smaller, lower resolution screens on the move.

You could always get a macbook though...

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs-17inch.html

Rsaeire

L31mr0d wrote: »

OP, the reason is you fit into a niche market. There are very few people that want those kinds of resolutions on the move. At home, most people would have a monitor that they could connect their laptop to for desktop use.

As you've shown though, you do have options, it's not like there are no laptops out there for your needs. Personally, and I'd say I'd fit your average laptop user, I prefer the extra battery life from smaller, lower resolution screens on the move.

You could always get a macbook though...

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs-17inch.html

I don't use my laptop on the move, I use it as a desktop replacement; even though I also have two desktop computers.

With regard to my original post, it was more an observation on the current screen resolution availability on laptops. While I might fit in a niche market, you have to admit that resolutions are lowering across the board on laptops, which makes no sense when more and more laptops are touting the addition of a Blu-ray drive as an incentive to buy a particular model.

I've looked at Macs before, but I'd only end up installing Windows on them. Plus, I'd want an ATI graphics solution; which Apple don't appear to offer.

L31mr0d

Rsaeire wrote: »

With regard to my original post, it was more an observation on the current screen resolution availability on laptops.

The problem is mobile computing technology has hit a peak. The dreaded "it's good enough" phase where people don't want bigger or better. "It can play my media and give me internet access... it's good enough"

People want lighter, smaller laptops with a longer battery life so screen resolutions in large desktop replacements have taken a back seat as there is no market for them. What you'll find now is pixel density is increasing in the smaller handheld devices, where the market is.

What we will see is battery technology continue to progress as well as the resolutions in handheld devices and netbooks catch up with their laptop equivalents.

Rsaeire

L31mr0d wrote: »

The problem is mobile computing technology has hit a peak. The dreaded "it's good enough" phase where people don't want bigger or better. "It can play my media and give me internet access... it's good enough"

People want lighter, smaller laptops with a longer battery life so screen resolutions in large desktop replacements have taken a back seat as there is no market for them. What you'll find now is pixel density is increasing in the smaller handheld devices, where the market is.

What we will see is battery technology continue to progress as well as the resolutions in handheld devices and netbooks catch up with their laptop equivalents.

While I've been noticing that handset screen resolution is on the rise, I didn't think it would result in laptop screen resolution reducing; especially given the rise of Blu-ray drives, as I mentioned before, being offered in laptops.

I also have a netbook and find it extremely useful for working on the go, but when I'm home, I much prefer using a big laptop with a high resolution screen, as I find it more productive to work on.

Hopefully around June, when the next batch of Intel Core processors are launched, we'll be blessed with some new high resolution laptops with ATI graphics solutions.

Voodu Child

ATI are coming on strong this generation, particularly in the mid-range and high-end.

The Mobility HD5650 is probably the best value mid-range laptop card at the moment (whereas going back a bit it was always the Nvidia 8600M, 9600M, etc). And the HD5870 is the fastest single mobile card on the market. Nvidia havent got an answer for that, they've taken G92b about as far as they can (GTX285M) and G200-based mobile cores are still too big and hot to bring into the high-end.

Main problem (with ATI) is that their mobile driver support still sucks.

As for 1080p screens, they're out there. They're not standard in the majority of laptops, sure, but thats always been the case.

Rsaeire

Voodu Child wrote: »

ATI are coming on strong this generation, particularly in the mid-range and high-end.

The Mobility HD5650 is probably the best value mid-range laptop card at the moment (whereas going back a bit it was always the Nvidia 8600M, 9600M, etc). And the HD5870 is the fastest single mobile card on the market. Nvidia havent got an answer for that, they've taken G92b about as far as they can (GTX285M) and G200-based mobile cores are still too big and hot to bring into the high-end.

Given that the new desktop Fermi cards from Nvidia run so hot and are so power hungry, I can't imagine that the mobile variants will be much better. As a result, ATI will no doubt continue to remain the best graphics option in the mobile space for some time.

Voodu Child wrote: »

As for 1080p screens, they're out there. They're not standard in the majority of laptops, sure, but thats always been the case.

While I'll admit that 1080p screens aren't the norm, there were certainly more options available before. For instance, Dell have stated that as 1600 x 900 is more popular than 1080p amongst its consumers, it will become the maximum available resolution on the majority of their laptops. As such, the Dell forums have numerous posts from users complaining that they want the 1080p option back, in addition to users who ordered a 1080p screen but have their orders delayed indefinitely because stock of those screens was particularly low. This can all be evidenced here, here and here.

BostonB

I love 1920x1200 on my laptop (old Dell 17). So much Workspace is great.

Overheal

david7536 wrote: »

Why do you prefer ATI graphics? Nvidia make superior mobile graphics solutions.

My Defective 8400M GS farts in your general direction :cool: