Rob Thorpe (rthorpe@realworldtech.com) on 9/18/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>Adrian (a@acm.org) on 9/17/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Richard Cownie (tich@pobox.com) on 9/17/09 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>
>>>Really ? I bought a cheap HP notebook in Jan, and back then
>>>it looked as though there was an option to get a 1680x1050
>>>screen - though that would have pushed the price up from
>>>around $650 to over $900, which was a bit more than I
>>>wanted to pay (I have 4-year-old twins who tore the keys
>>>off my previous laptop, so until they get older I'm
>>>sticking to cheap throwaway machines ...).
>>
>>The 1680x1050 option still appears in the technical specifications of some HP Compaq
>>notebooks, but, unlike 2 years ago, it is not included in any of the standard configurations.
>>Whenever I tried to create a custom configuration with the on-line configurator,
>>the high resolution option was not available.
>>
>>I have tried again right now, and the highest resolutions available for custom
>>configurations are 1280x800 and 1440x900, while 2 years ago 1680x1050 was standard for the same notebook model.
>
>I bought a Dell 1525 (the cheapest 15" machine) in December last with a 1400x900
>screen. Today you you have to pay more for that. I can't really say why.
>
I've been searching all over for a decent notebook with 1920x1200 15" screen. Dell and Lenovo seem to be the only companies offering them right now. (I actually like Thinkpad build quality, but not so fond of some other aspects.) It amazes me that a company can offer a 11 or 12" 1280x800 screen, and then turn around and advertise a 15" 1366x768 as "high resolution" in the same breath.