Of screen size and resolution on mobile PCs
We are entering an interesting time in the cycle of mobile PCs with the appearance of devices of all different sizes. This fact was driven home to me over this past weekend as I was rebuilding the Sony U71 to send out to the winner of our Geekapalooza contest. The first generation UMPCs all had 7 inch screens and ran at a native resolution of 800 x 480. The Sony U runs at 800 x 600 on its 5 inch screen and having used one for several years my experience is that the resolution of the U is perfect for that screen size. I have used other mobile PCs with a similar sized screen at different resolutions and all of them fell short in the usability department. Read on to get my take on screen size and resolution.
There are two main factors relating to a good screen experience, sizeof course which plays the main role in determining the overall size ofa device and the video resolution which plays a big role in determininghow useful a device can be. My experience with devices running a 5 inch screen has me firmly believing that 800 x 600 is the perfect resolution for that size. I find I can use such a device for hours on end comfortably and be very production at the same time. On the other hand I had a problem using the Sony UX devices with their sub-5 inch screen running at 1024 x 600. The resolution is just too big for that small screen and usage of an hour or longer would cause severe eye strain. It was not uncommon for me to get a headache at the one hour mark with the UX, something that is just not acceptable for my mobile usage pattern. On the other hand I find the 800 x 480 resolution of the OQO Model 01 to be too small. While the screen is very easy to read Windows is just not made for such a short resolution (480). The dreaded problem of dialog boxes falling off the screen as a result is a major pain for prolific users. Sure you can switch to a bigger resolution on UMPCs but native resolution is crisper and easier on the eyes than pixellated resolutions.
I have the same problem with UMPCs running 800 x 480 on a 7 inch screen. The larger screen size just screams for a resolution bigger than that and I’m glad to see OEMs like Samsung step up and increase the resolution. The Q1 Ultra runs a native resolution of 1024 x 600 which I believe will be perfect for that screen size. I hope other OEMs follow suit as 1024 x 600 will increase user productivity by leaps and bounds on a 7 inch screen. When I was using a Samsung Q1 I kept the resolution at 1024 x 600 almost all the time to see enough on the screen to be productive, but it was not the native resolution and thus a little fuzzy. The more you can comfortably view on the screen at one time the more productive you will be.
The Fujitsu P1610 runs at an unusually large resolution of 1280 x 768 on its 8.9 inch screen, a resolution that while very productive can also be rather small at times. It drives home my feelings about matching the screen size and resolution carefully. I don’t get eyestrain using the Fuji but sometimes little bitty controls can be hard to hit with the finger, and fingertip control is something at which devices with a touchscreen should excel. My desire to be as productive as possible with my mobile PC drives home to me that XGA (1024 x 768) resolution is not optimum for 12.1 inch screens like most Tablet PCs. It’s good to see OEMS offer higher resolution options to take proper advantage of that big screen real estate. The days of XGA are over as far as I’m concerned.
To recap, here’s a listing of various screen sizes and what my experience tells me is the optimum native resolution for them:
5 inch or slightly smaller- 800 x 600
7 inch- 1024 x 600
9 inch- 1280 x 768
12.1 inch- 1440 x 1050
Notice that 800 x 480 doesn’t appear on my list, it’s a horrible resolution under Windows of any flavor.
Wow my laptop has a 14.1″ screen but a resolution of only 1280 x 800 and is still quite crisp IMHO
My preference is anything with a vertical resolution above 768. Anything less an stupid designers from Intel, Microsoft and other will not let you press all buttons on control panels.
Even Microsoft software like “Windows Easy Transfer” for Vista requires more than 650+ pixels) even though MS states 800×480 as minimum for “origami”
But my preferences now would be…
12.1 inch- 1440 x 1050 NON widescreen.
Very interesting thoughts.
In order to complete :
I love my Sony PCG-U3 with a 1024×768 resolution on its 6.4″ screen. I really think it’s too bad that modern devices (the U3 is 3-4 years old, but still very usefull to me) don’t use this resolution on that size of screens…
(excuse my bad english, I’m in France)
I like 1024×600 on the sub-5 inch form factor, personally. I’m lucky enough that my eyesight is good enough to be able to take full advantage of it, although I worry that any more is pushing things too far.
I primarily use the pad-mouse rather than the touchscreen, though, unless the buttons are very big.
@Chrisboff: it’s not about being crisp or not. It’s just that with a screen estate of that size you could have a better resolution than 1280×800.
I’ve been using a Portege M400 (12.1 inch and 1400×1050) and that’s definitely the way to go for me. I came from a 15.4 inch with 1280×800 and this is so much better for my eyes.
I believe you have to use pick a screen with a resolution that feels good to you.
@Chrisboff and Gert Van Gool: both good points. I’m currently running on a 15 inch widescreen with 1280 x 800 and I find its a good rez for me. My eyes get strained easily, so I like this balance of more horizontal real estate (I like my spreadsheets) while having readable fonts.
@Kaz: I didn’t thionk I’d like/need the widescreen either, but its good for multi-taskiong ie twittering while watching a vid
Nice post and I think your numbers are right on. If I were to choose a next gen UMPC right now it would be the Q1U because of the 1024×600 resolution on its 7″ screen.
Very practical comments and very helpful. Thanks.
But one point you alluded to gets me thinking – it’s Windows as one limiting factor of how the display resolution is used. Right now it’s a pure up/down scaling of size to match resolution. In other words, changing the resolution is equivalent to changing the amount of content on the screen.
Hopefully in the future, there will be options for improving the quality of the image by improving the detail of the screen as opposed to changing how much fits on the display.
Increasing pixels by a factor of 4 and keeping the same things on the screen would be the obvious simple example to allow quality improvement without changing the content. I think that this sort of scaling at less friendly screen ratios has been an issue for the Win Mobile team (and developers) also, hasn’t it? But I’m sure that in the long run, instead of only one resolution setting for a UMPC, we’ll be able to not only choose how much fits on the screen, but what resolution we get to see it at!
I’m using the LS800 which is 800×600 and 98% of the time that resolution is right on in terms of the balance between usability and eye strain. I can’t even imagine trying to work on the 9 in screen at 1280×768 – it would be a complete mess for my usage (not a companion device) and I have perfect eyesight. I realize that traditional desktop/laptop owners have an issue the first time they look at the smaller resolution and feel a bit claustrophobic, but the feeling does go away.
From what I’m looking at, a 1024×600 5.6″ screen should nearly match the DPI of a 5″ screen @ 800×600. I see where you’re going with this, but I think that you’re ignoring aspect ratios to some extent.
I really don’t see this as the big deal some people make it out to be because the font, icon or window size can be set or changed in nearly every program I use and even windows itself.
You can set the size of your default windows font in Vista very easily, internet explorer has a zoom button at the bottom right that is just perfect for tapping with a finger or stylus, you can zoom in a bit when typing or reading in Word etc. Almost every program and the OS itself is customisable in many ways that can help with viewability.
So do we really need less resolution on smaller screen or do we need to spend some time setting things up a bit better based on our personal needs.
Sure it can be harder to tap on an icon or other things but that’s insignificant compared to not being able to click on an OK button because you cant get to the bottom of a dialog box.
Not to mention many programs just wont install or run at these resolutions of 800 x 600 any more.
So sorry I just am not convinced yet.
Gordon
@Bob Russell
That’s what a DPI change does – try it. It’s a fairly easy way to boost the size of fonts, without mucking about with the appearance settings.
I had crt monitor, that time i used to use 1028.768 resolution, i have purchased 16” wide screen Lcd monitor but i cant change resolution more than 800.600 pls help me. 4rnds bye