@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 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

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’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.

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!

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.

@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

@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.

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.

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)

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.

Wow my laptop has a 14.1″ screen but a resolution of only 1280 x 800 and is still quite crisp IMHO