Not many at a body only suggested price of $3,499. I assume it’s a product targeting professional photographers.

Similarly, 1995 pricing for the TP 701 was not targeted at mainstream consumers. If you really needed a lightweight machine back then, $4,000 to $5,000 wasn’t out of line. http://www.businessweek.com/1996/08/b346311.htm
$1,050 for the UX21A and $1,100 for the UX31A. Problem solved. No, wait: the keyboard is backlit and described as having a "seamless chiclet" design.

Consumers are are clearly a lot smarter than you give them credit for

Another HP model with 15.6" 1920x1080 IPS panel (glossy) - HP Envy 15-3040nr http://www.notebookcheck.net/HP-Envy-15 ... 051.0.html

Still no reason for Lenovo to reborn workstation ThinkPad model having ugly-free display ? Oh wait, the "work" part is the problem, notebooks are no longer considered as equipment for working, it is device made exclusively for watching HD movies and commenting them on facebook

I would love to have an IPS screen for that! (minus the Facebook, since I don't have an account)

That's good, then your prospective employer can't ask you for facebook log in, though not having one may make you seem odd.

Neither have I. I also don't have a mobile phone because I found it disturbing (and local services are overpriced - most expensive in EU with the worst coverage)

Odd? Not. It may even be an advantage during interview process because the potential employer knows you won't be wasting time getting to know what your buddies have for breakfast during work.

Back on topic, we may indeed be seeing higher resolution screens. Rumours have it that the next MacBook will spot a double-resolution screen (Could it be IPS as well?) and Windows 8 is going to have better support for scaling.

Cheers.

Plenty of other ways to waste time on the internet.

With all the rumours about IPS in Macbooks that have been going on for several generations, and considering the fact that Apple has demonstrated both the want and the ability to obtain IPS screens for their phones, tablets and desktop LCDs, one has to wonder why they still haven't got a single Macbook with an IPS screen. At this point I would not be surprised at all to see one.

Because yields for extremely-high-res, laptop-sized IPS panels suck?

They really suck? But for iPad-size even more high-res and much higher-DPI - they are OK? How come?

Like posting on thinkpads.com, haha!

IPS screens cost more than TN screens, no doubt about that. Perhaps the price difference has come down a little bit over the years, and the cost of LCD screens regardless of technology has gone down a lot as well - A >20" IPS desktop monitor costs 200USD these days. That's almost half of the price of 5-year ago.

I think the question is - Are we at the point for the next step in screen technology in the consumer market? The answer seems to be yes with the new iPad being the harbinger. Of course, it's (IMO) an evolution step that will play out over many years, and likely to remain a niche market for some time.

Besides, one have to mind that, besides manufacturing cost, IPS screens consumes more power than her TN counterparts. It could be a significant factor that hinders its adoption on mobile devices.

At the same time, the new iPad screen is not all positives either - Because of the higher pixel density, it needs more LED for backlight and therefore has higher heat output, consumes more power and needs a bigger/higher-density battery, which contributed to the increased weight and thickness compared to that of iPad 2.

Cheers.

Both issues have been addressed by e-IPS (economy IPS) display technology. The e-IPS is worse than "full-featured" IPS (P-IPS today) but still far better than ugly TN. That's why it's been developed.

Well you'll note that the small screen of the iPhone was the first to be replaced by a "retina" display...

I'm *far* from an expert on LCD tech, but from what I've been told defect rates generally are proportional to the size of the display (both physically, and resolution-wise). This was part of the reason why the T220 was ungodly expensive, and is also part of the reason why while a 9.7" high-res panel can be produced with good enough yields, laptop-sized (let alone desktop-sized) panels still have too low a yield to make them cost-effective for most applications.

But there are plenty of IPS LCDs in 22"+ desktop size, as well as 32"+ televisions. It just doesn't make sense to me that they are cost-effective in small sizes and large sizes, but somehow not in medium (laptop) sizes.

Thanks for the heads-up.

There's a difference though, between something that had been developed, to start appearing in the market, to being adopted en masse.

Depending on how we define the term "soon", and how LG's claims are being fulfilled, this could range from something utterly meaningless to something revolutionary...

Cheers.

Oh, absolutely. Just not at the pixel densities of the "retina" displays.

And yes, yields on more traditional displays have the same issues. That's part of the reason why a 30" monitor with the same pixel density as a 20" one costs a lot more than a 30" 1080p TV. It's just that even though the yields on that 30" display might suck, they're not so bad as to make it impractical... just pricey.

My previous wording was rather poor. I should have clarified: the yield is proportional to both the physical size and the resolution. Large, low-density (aka. LCD TVs), good enough yields. Small, high-density (aka. iPhone), recently good enough. Large, high-density? Not yet.

I sort of begin to see your point now. I guess it is theoretically possible that the two-variable function yield=f(size,density) is somehow quite low specifically for the sizes and densities of laptop screens. I just find it not very likely, but I don't have any data to back it up. We'll just wait and see.

I imagine that the demand is also a factor. Then again, I don't have any data to back it up either.

There's a post on liliputing of some Intel slides that the company is expecting the arrival of "retina display" level LCD in laptop and desktop starting from 2013+.

According to the resolutions and assuming square pixel, the ratio varies between 16:10 to 16:9.

Cheers.

Ref: http://liliputing.com/2012/04/intel-ret ... -2013.html

Another one - Sony Vaio VPC-SE2M9E/B (1920x1080 pixel, IPS, glossy: no) http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Son ... 834.0.html

HP, Dell and Sony have workstation models with IPS panels. Lenovo, still no response ?

Win8: High Resolution Retina Laptops, Thinkpad & Tablet PCs?

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012 ... reens.aspx

I have to thank Apple for the Retina display. Some is making the market go towards real High Resolution displays, like how Thinkpads with SXGA+/ UXGA/ QXGA used to be.

I'd love to see these outlined resolutions & sizes in the future. Hopefully, they also touch the 13/14" segment with the High Resolution Slates with Add on USB+BlueTooth Keyboards that have Thinkpad like FEEL/ MECHANISM.

Well.. this would make leave Thinkpads. I wish we could Petition the Thinkpad Design team to WAKE UP!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57434 ... port-says/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57434 ... nd-pricey/

Every site is claiming that their sources confirmed that the new macbook pro this summer will have "retina" display.

There are some new thinkpad announcement this week, in particular that X230 will have 1600 x 900 display as option. Not sure if that 1600x900 is IPS or not... I hope we don't have to choose between IPS and high-res... Not exactly as Retina-ish as Apple/Asus/Sony's offerings, but at least a small step forward.

Oh that new X1 Carbon is sexy... but from some hand-on photos it seems to have some TN-panel with not-so-great view angle (again).