First things first, I really do like my T520 (see specs in sig) quite a bit. It's way more power than I need, it runs cool and quietly, the battery life is reasonable, and having 1920x1080 is a pretty good workspace. That said, I miss my T60 machines! It's really sad I got almost as much functional workspace out of something so much smaller (14" 4:3 SXGA+). The amount of vertical space is ludicrous. Heck, my father's X61t feels nearly as big height-wise, and it's tiny by comparison. 16:10 was a huge downgrade, but at least it didn't give us the wide, short profile we're stuck with now. Apple's product range makes it clear 16x10 (and decent quality TN panels, at that) are available still...why on earth don't we still see them in our business-class ThinkPads? I love the design philosophy of my ThinkPad beyond this issue--the modular bay, swappable components, stellar keyboard, TrackPoint(!)...but this is really odd. Much as I hated to see it go, I can accept that 4:3 was destined to die out of the mainstream...but why make it worse than it has to be?

I've got the opportunity to pick up an SXGA+ X60 tablet locally--even though it's only a Core Duo, I'm sorely tempted to grab it (assuming it's as advertised) and put my T520 in a drawer. The speed won't be a big issue for me, and the useful screen space will be darned near the same in a far smaller package. Am I crazy to be considering this?

Join the club, loads of people want Standard 4:3 screens instead of that stupid widescreen, which is only good for watching movies.
For that I have a big television!
IMHO widescreen is not, and will never be, productive in a business environment (but YMMV).
This subject has been brought up many times already...

Oh, believe me, I know it's not an original concept

I suppose as much as anything, I was just curious if anybody else had done the large 15" widescreen --> 12" 4:3 SXGA+ swap.

That, and I can't resist the idea of a clean high-res X60t plus ultrabase for $200

I can see what your talking about. I've gone from Widescreen back to standard 4:3.

I bought a T60 a while back and just loved it. So much so, that I figured I wanted a T400s with the high resolution Widescreen. Well, I like the T400s, but it just lacks in so many places that the T60 holds strong in.

The T400s is great for portability, but the T60 is great for around the house and that. I actually bought a T40 for work now and it's great. I do all my paperwork and quotes on it, and with my iPhone, I have internet wherever I need it.

So, needless to say, I agree with you and have done something very similar. I just need to get a higher resolution screen for my T40 and T60

Oh, BTW, $200 sounds like an excellent price for all that

You can swap the SXGA+ LCD from the tablet also into a regular X60/X60s/X61/X61s and get away with less weight.
Tablets are not much fun for a daily driver.
My X60s lasts over 8 hours on 1 battery-charge (extended battery and 32GB SSD).

That's good to know, the LCD panel in my X60s is extremely dim, time for a replacement.

Must search up on this swap.

You find 1920x1200 less productive than 1600x1200?

There always seems to be an almost Luddite (look it up!) attitude to 16:9 screens. Am I alone in liking the format? Somehow I doubt it. Millions of 16:9 screen computers are sold every year.

What are the downsides:- A wider screen which makes the box a different shape. It won't fit your old bag as well. It is a change.

What are the upsides:- Compatible with modern HD TV screens, HD cameras, HD video recorders. It allows for full keyboard size plus stereo speakers.

Each to their own. OK, it seems a little odd at first but my advice is to move on and enjoy the benefits. Is all this moaning and bleating moving things on?

In this specific case it is most probably rather a matter of visual ergonomics. If you compare the DPI resolution values of the following three common display types, there is much more difference than just added vertical screen real estate (DPI values on the far right side): Once i had a T61p with WUXGA+ (1920x1200) for a short time, which i finally got rid off simply because i found this high DPI value practically impossible to work with. In comparison, the T61 which i still have with its WSXGA+ (1680x1050) is very easy for the eyes thanks to a very good DPI value. In the end i settled for a T61+ Frankenpad with a UXGA (1600x1200) as a perfect compromise.

Leaving the added benefit of its Flexview characteristics aside, the UXGA DPI value is still rather easy on the eyes, being only 5 DPI steps away from the most comfortable WSXGA+ DPI value, while the WUXGA+ DPI value is almost 20 DPI steps higher and unfortunately has proven to be beyond reasonable ergonomic limits, at least in my particular case.

If we go a few steps further and compare DPI values of some other popular screen resolutions, there is no real joy anymore either: If one wanted to recover the vertical resolution of a standard 14.1" SXGA+ (1400x1050) screen, one would need to settle with a 15.6" WUXGA (1920x1080) screen with an almost 17 steps higher DPI value, which might already be too much for some people's eyes. For someone who values vertical space much more than horizontal one, this is indeed a bit uncomfortable to swallow.

So there is obviously a little bit more to the screen resolution changes of Thinkpads during the last years than just the display ratio, and this is in first place regarding DPI values. Young people with still perfect eye sight might find this to be no issue, but for me this does make a big difference.

Depending mostly on text oriented usage, fortunately, i am in the position to not rely so much on CPU speed and the latest graphics gimmicks on any of my Thinkpads. Therefore i expect to be able to use my wonderful T61+ Frankenpad for many more years to come until there is no other choice than switching to something more contemporary. Who knows, maybe this non-ergonomic wide screen craze will have made room for something more reasonable until then.


(Resolution values were taken from http://thinkpad-wiki.org/Aufl%C3%B6sungen)

killer wrote:



It's tough to enjoy benefits when you can't find any, which is the case with 16:9 aspect when I'm concerned. That's the only reason why I don't own a X220, making it a first IPS-equipped ThinkPad that I haven't owned...

I'd agree with numbero that WSXGA+ on a 15.4" is likely the most comfortable 16:10 resolution for the given screen size. WUXGA is much more palatable on a 17" unit.

Personally, I'm way too used to UXGA to consider moving anywhere anytime soon...

That's a pretty biased coverage.

Are you trying to claim that everyone is just complaining because their laptop has a different shape, or just for the sake of complaining?

With widescreen you are ultimately trading vertical area for horizontal area, with the former in many cases being more important.

What do you mean "compatible with modern HD screens/recorders"? Do you somehow suggest that a non-widescreen laptop cannot be used with aforementioned "HD" equipment? Perhaps you mean that it's more compatible with the widescreen movies that are recorded and viewed by said equipment. Which brings back the same point RBS made earlier - widescreen is great for movies, less for work.

Vertical space on a screen (other than for movies) is much more important than horizontal space.
When browsing e.g. this forum, you'd be constantly scrolling, how stupid is that!
And when you are browsing, not having any spacehungry toolbars like Google/Yahoo/Ask and their ilk also greatly helps.
In a widescreen, you probably lose 20% or more to the 'overhead' alone from Windows and browsers, what a waste!
Either way, I have now said my piece. Peace!

Each to their own, RBS. I like the ability to have side-by-side windows, which is easily accomplished on a wide screen. Maybe shifty-eyed Englishmen prefer a lateral view?

I gave my old T43 to my mother-in-law and I keep getting it back to do updates, sorting out whatever she has c*cked up, clearing reams of unnecessary cr@p, etc. while she drinks endless cups of tea with the missus. I really struggle with the T43's 4:3 format compared with my T510's 16:9 screen.

Point taken about toolbars etc. They really reduce the available screen space. I use IE9 without tool bars and I have good visibility of any web page.

@dr_st: Yes, it was fairly biased coverage. Some people hate change and want to moan about it ... just for the sake of moaning. Change is inevitable and, when the benefits exceed the costs, it is worth supporting. On compatibility, when I take landscape photographs in 16:9 format then I am absolutely delighted to be able to view them in full-screen high definition on my laptop.

Chacun à son goût, as they say in France.

I am glad for you that these 16:9 screens indeed seem to properly match your particular usage patterns and that you are able to appreciate this particular benefit. May i assume that you are a photographer or movie producer or something like that?

Well, since the least of my concerns is being able to view photographs or movies in 16:9 format in full-screen high definition on my own work machines, especially since nothing would prevent me at all from viewing such material on any kind of screen, such a change does not really bring any further benefits worth supporting for my own rather text oriented usage patterns. It is simply wrong to assume that people only moan about this particular decrement in usability because they hate change. People moan because such an improvement for the worse in reality simply proves to be a very counterproductive change for standard usage patterns for which a TV-like display is not at all appropriate.

In fact, i wouldn't really consider the absence of black areas on top/bottom of a 16:9 screen while watching a photo/movie be of any practical advantage, but rather a much less relevant aesthetic one. You'd still have to deal with black areas on the left/right of the 16:9 screen if you'd watch any 4:3 photo/video material, by the way.

Also don't forget that this change was not at all based on technical merits in regards to usability, but rather because the TFT manufacturers preferred to unify their display production lines as a profit maximizing cost savings measure, which resulted in the production of TV screens disguised as computer screens. There is no technically justified reason in computer optimized usability behind that other than bleak "cost savings". Sure, Thinkpads may have become cheaper this way, but this also applies to the counter value we get in return. Now we simply get less for less, and there is no more alternative left other than maybe buying new or refurbished parts on the aftermarket and create Frankenpads which better match one's actual computing needs.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the corresponding English proverb in this very case. Choose what suits you best, but just don't forget that this is, in first place, not simply a matter of taste but of usability and ergonomics. A TV set or video console is simply not the best choice for a work computer.

What's the resolution of this T43, and of your T510? If the T43 is only 1024x768, of course *ANY* 16:9 laptop would be better. Few people that I know would prefer 1024x768 over 1366x768, let alone 1600x900 or 1920x1080. The debate is really about 1400x1050 versus 1600x900 for 14" laptops, and 1600x1200 versus 1920x1080 for 15-inchers. Have you ever used 1400x1050 or 1600x1200?



I don't have experience with many cameras but for the ones I have used, landscape resolutions are lower than 4:3 ones. For example, on my HTC Touch Pro2, the highest 4:3 photo res is 2048x1536 whereas the highest widescreen photo res is only 2048x1216, i.e. "wide" means "short". Why would I want to take pictures with this lower res?

What suits you best IS ENTIRELY a matter of taste, usability and ergonomics.

Proposing a case that any particular screen ratio has inherent universal goodness is just plain silly. Different ratios will have a different impact on the perception of taste, usability and ergonomics for each user.

The laptop buyer market en masse has clearly voted with its $$$, whether you happen to like that or not.

Agreed, if something is forced down one's throat, then there is definitely no other choice. But your perception is very wrong: the market was never given any choice, so effectively nobody ever was able to cast any vote.

Maybe we should simply stop this discussion here, since it is as useful as barking at the moon.

That is correct.

I agree. And even if consumers had been given a chance to "vote", they wouldn't necessarily "vote" for what they felt was better. For example, just because many more people go to McDonalds than to 5-star restaurants doesn't mean they think McDonalds is better.

So, you are back to a conspiracy theory that there is a big customer demand which all of the competing suppliers are deliberately not filling

Occam's Razor slices that apart very easily

Words of wisdom, Bill Bolton.

The conspiracy idea is fully yours, not mine. Was there ever any choice given, or any other possibility to choose? Occam's Razor simply doesn't apply here, and this is not the kind of discussion i am interested in.

Which ones?

And you still haven't answered me: Have you used 1400x1050 or 1600x1200? What are the resolutions of your T43 and T510?



The suppliers certainly worked hard to fill a big consumer demand -- the demand for cheap laptops. 16:9 panels are cheaper to make than 4:3 ones, and so suppliers abandoned the latter in favor of the former. This explanation fully satisfies Occam's Razor, and has been cited many times to explain the transition to 16:9. No one has conjured up any conspiracy theory.

Indeed, if I remember correctly, 4:3 overlapped with 16:10, and 16:10 overlapped with 16:9, but 4:3 did not coexist with 16:9 except for a handful of obscure Japan-only 4:3 Panasonic and Sony models.

Personally, for two screens of similar diagonal sizes, I prefer 1366x768 over 1024x768 and 1920x1080 over 1600x1200, but like 1400x1050 more than 1600x900.

EDIT: I am on a 14-hour train ride and have nothing better to do, so let me list my longer list of preference ranking:

17.*-inch: 1920x1200 > 1920x1080 > 1600x900 > 1440x900
15.*-inch: 1920x1200 > 1920x1080 > 2048x1536 > 1600x1200 ~ 1680x1050 > 1400x1050 > 1600x900
14.*-inch: 1600x1200 > 1400x1050 > 1600x900 > 1440x900 > 1280x800
13.*-inch: 1600x900 > 1920x1080 > 1280x1024 > 1440x900 > 1280x800
12.*-inch: 1400x1050 > 1440x900 > 1280x800 > 1024x768
10.*-inch: 1366x768 > 1024x768

Pianowizard's explanation is correct. There was never any way for any consumers to "vote", with their $$$ or anything else, in the choice between standard screen or widescreen.

@pianowizard: T43 has a 15" screen 1024x768. T510 has Intel HD graphics 1600x900. The "words of wisdom" are the ones Bill Bolton wrote.

Which exactly proves pianowizard's point, that it was the resolution, not the screen form factor that was holding you back.

On the contrary, it is the 4:3 format that I dislike. Which is what I said in the first place. It has nothing to do with resolution. Please don't try assuming what I like and don't like.

Well, can you explain a little better what it is you dislike about it?

The shape, dear dr_st, the shape of 4:3.

I see. I thought that you actually had some productivity issues with it, but if it's the shape itself, there really isn't much to do about it.

Some people like Thinkpads because they are black and boxy. Others hate them because they are black and boxy. To each his own.