vpr 200A5 screen same as Apple?

[nedlyj]

I thought I read somewhere (maybe here) that was a confirmed report that the vpr Matrix 200A5 screen was the identical screen that's currently in the Apple Powerbook 15". Does anyone know if this is true, and who the manufacturer of the screen is?

Thanks,

-nedlyj

[Ioman]

I have heard the exact same thing. I am willing to bet this is true. Out of all the laptops I have tested, the screen on the 200a5 is by far the best I have seen and rivals the Apple Powerbook.

[dnt]

I heard the same thing too but why does the apple one have a higher resolution then?

[Ioman]

Originally posted by dnt
I heard the same thing too but why does the apple one have a higher resolution then?

It could be because the Apple is using a different video card with different settings? Perhaps the screen on the 200A5 is the same as Apples and can theoretically support a higher resolution but is limited by the Nvidia Drivers. If I am not mistaken the Nvidia drivers on these laptops are out dated?

[dnt]

Actually when I was trying to hack the Nvidia inf drivers, I was able to get other higher resolution. The highest that our screen would go was 1280x1024. If I tried anything higher the lcd would flicker like on a CRT when the resolution isn't supported. I'm still not convince that we have the exact apple lcd. Maybe it''s made by the same people but probably a lower resolution.

[Angus]

Since when does the 15" Powerbook support higher resolution than the VPR? The native resolution on the 15.2" Powerbook is 1280x854 (native meaning there's actually 1280 LCDs across by 854 LCDs down). Quoted from Apple.com's 15" Powerbook specs page...

15.2-inch (diagonal) built-in TFT display (15-inch models)
- Support for millions of colors at 1280-by-854-pixel resolution
- Support for resolutions of 1280 by 854, 1152 by 768, 896 by 600, 720 by 480, and 640 by 480 pixels at 3:2 aspect ratio; 1024 by 768, 800 by 600, and 640 by 480 pixels at 4:3 aspect ratio

The widescreens on the Powerbooks and widescreen VPR notebooks are XGA resolution. If you want more resolution (finer and more LCDs in the same space) they would need to upgrade to SXGA+ and we could have 1600 pixel wide native displays. The final step up would be to UXGA and would yield 1900 native horizontal pixels. Right now the only people to have widescreens in either SXGA+ or UXGA are Dell on their new Inspiron 8500. All of Apple's widescreens are XGA just cut to different dimensions.

[dnt]

hahah.... my bad. I was looking at the 17" Okay, I was wrong. But hey now you know that we can also get 1280x1024... it doesn't look good though. :-)

[budsaint]

Angus,

1024x768 =XGA
1280x1024 =SXGA
1600x1200=UXGA

Saint

[Ioman]

I don't think the screens have to be the same specs as long as they are made by the same manufacturer and look equally good. I personally think this screen rivals the Apple Powerbook screens and I would not be suprised if they were made by the same company.

[sllewniac]

dnt could you explain to me how you to hack the NVIDIA inf driver to get the increased resolution.

Thanks

[dnt]

check out http://download.nvidia.com/Windows/43.45/NV_Compress_Modes_User's_Guide_2.1.pdf

It explains the way the new drivers hand the resolution. Just add your own resolution.

[Angus]

Budsaint...

XGA, SXGA, etc aren't exact resolutions alone. The standards they describe are related to LCDs per inch or the dot pitch of an LCD screen. So while 1024x768 on a 15" screen might be XGA, that same resolution on a 12" screen would be SXGA or some higher standard because to pack that many LCDs onto the panel they need to be smaller and finer. So your simple description is a bit off, and even more so when you're talking about widescreen LCDs.

[budsaint]

You don't know what you are talking about. These resolution don't relate specifically to LCD technology. Christ, a 12.1 inch LCD screen with an XGA graphics card is precisely the same as a 15". Both would scan at 48khz and refresh at 60hz. It's just
a smaller screen, no different than a 15" CRT and a 19" CRT. Do some research......

[Angus]

There's no need to get your titties all up in a bunch, bucko. After asking a trusted techno geek friend of mine about the issue and doing MORE research I see that XGA, SXGA, etc doesn't relate to dot-pitch as I had once been told. So you are correct about that.

But hey, way to be a douchebag about it!

Anyways, my point overall is that we ended up with a widescreen with a very respectable (for an LCD) dot pitch. Nice thing about the screen is that it's clarity falls somewhere between many expensive 17" SXGA and SXGA+ screens.

[budsaint]

Sorry Angus.

[Ishman]

I must say that I am very impressed with you Budsaint (in a positive way).

It really takes a strong person to apologize especially in a forum where people have a tendency to hide behind there anonymity.
I have been to many forums that people just explode all over one another and it is refreshing to see people conduct conversations civilized. Each owing up to his/her mistakes..


That is what makes this a great place to learn and share information.


Ishman

[nedlyj]

Now boys... Both of you up to bed without dinner!

I can honestly say that even after many many years in the computer industry (and being a techno geek) that even I am starting to get confused by some of the newer resolution acronyms.

Now that some manufacturers are adding further classifications, like Dell's SXGA+, you now have to start deciphering what the "+" means too.

And of course, not all resoultions have an acronym, so that makes it even more confusing. The 1280x854 resolution on the 200A5 for example (and the PowerBook 15") has no true acronym. Dell refers to 1280x800 as WXGA, but I've seen others refer to 1280x854 and 1280x960 as WXGA. So, which is it? And again, Dell, what's with the "+"??

As for me, I have to say that I find the combination of 1280x854 resolution on the 15.2 inch screen one of the most appealing and comfortable pairings I've ever seen. The 1280 width allows me ample room to do a 2-page spread if I need it, and still be able to actually read what I'm working on. I think I'll get spoiled...

-n

[Ioman]

I just found this forum. Sorry for all of the frustration in here. I did some research and here is what I found:

VGA = 640x 480
SVGA = 800x600
XGA = 1024x768
Macintosh = 1152x870
SXGA = 1280x1024
UXGA = 1600x1200

Found here: http://www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/defineterm?term=SXGA

http://www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/defineterm?term=PCdisplaymodes

I just quickly went and looked it up.

[Angus]

Nothing to see hear. Move along kids.

Hehe. It's all good. I'm not one of those touchy feely weirdos who is going to cry about getting zinged to the admin and demand retribution. Please. Everyone that matters around here is a decent adult and it shows through in the truly enormous amount of info that is passed along on a daily basis here.

I owned up to being wrong, I spoke my peace, Bud spoke his, I more than accept his apology, and everything is keen.

I don't know what's up with Dell. Quite honestly the issue of getting straight information about monitors has long been a weak point with computers starting way back with CRTs that are labeled one size (i.e. 15") and having a tube that's only 13.9". Then came along LCDs that are labeled correctly. Between pixele refresh rates, viewing angles, resolutions, dot pitch, etc etc there's plenty of room for confusion both intentional and unintentional.

Hell I'm still trying to figure out if I like LCDs or not. Right now I'm still trying to figure out if I like the way they display stuff or not. When doing graphics work and looking at stuff like old websites I decided on a CRT I notice what looks like flaws in compression a lot more on LCD. But is it the LCD or just the JPG compression? It's stuff like that heaped on top of everything else that gets people confused. I really do like the brightness of this thing though!

[nedlyj]

Angus,

I do mostly graphic work as well, and on my desktop I will use nothing other than a trinitron CRT. While text can be a bit fuzzy at some sizes, an LCD doesn't come close to representing colors as realistically as a CRT. Yes, colors can be extremely saturated and look good to the eye on an LCD, but color matching and calibration are just not accurate. The worst offenders are greens and reds, which are represented differently on LCDs than CRTs. And the CRTs have it right.

-n

[Angus]

I definitely do all of my important color work on the CRT since it has yet to fail me and like you said has the best representation. Lately though I really miss the widescreen display aspect. I'm dying to get ahold of one of those 22 or 23" 1900x1200 LCDs but have hesitated because of the color issue. I'm curious to find out how well those external color calibrators do on LCDs as well, but don't have the $400 to throw away on one.

One other nagging issue is that the gamma tends to vary depending on angle. Lately I noticed it's not so bad if you shift left/right but up/down a little bit of tilt can really change things. What a hassle. Bah. LCDs are slowly getting there. Maybe in a year or two they will be accurate enough to really justify them for design and color sensative work.

[nedlyj]

Angus,

I agree with your thoughts. But I will say, that if I were an Apple user, I probably wouldn't cry too much having to use the Apple 22" Studio Display lcd panel. Best panels on the market bar none.

But as long as I'm PC'ing it in Photoshop, I'll stick with my 21" Sony CRT.

-n

[Angus]

You can always buy the 22 or 23 inch Apple display and an adapter. They work pretty flawlessly on PCs at that point. I would feel like an ass though if I wasn't happy with a $2000 display that didn't refresh fast enough for my ocassional gaming. :(

[nedlyj]

Except that the Apple adapter (DVI to ADC) requires a DVI port on the video card, which I don't have. And apparently you can't use the Apple adapter stacked with a dvi to vga adapter.

Also, the Apple displays have a single cable which provides both video signal AND power to the LCD so you MUST use the Apple adapter to attach to anything other than a G4 desktop.

Sigh...

-n

[Ioman]

Sounds like too much trouble to me. Who knows, maybe Apple will release a PC version of their Cinema display sometime soon. They release their popular Apple iPod for Windows based systems because the demand was so high.

I will contact Apple Pr and see what they say.

In the mean time, check out me Apple 17" iMac review and tell me what you think: http://reviews.designtechnica.com/review50.html

[prestonmann]

Nice review. :) I like those things. Thought about getting one for my project studio, but will probably have to go with a powermac. Hehe...