The ThinkPad is Dead, Long Live..... ?

[pianowizard]

Cause any thinkpad or business class notebook i could've bought for similar prices would be outclassed in both performance and battery life. I just ran this thing for 6 hours. Try that with a few years old machine.

Well, the X60s I had back in Dec 2006 lasted 8 hours on a single charge.

I'm surprised how well it runs. My only complaint is the *****Expletives removed by Moderator***** touchpad.

Assuming your Acer has the Celeron N2840, its benchmark score is 1056. In the U.S., it wouldn't be that hard to find a used business-class laptop that is at least that fast and has a battery lasting >6 hours, for $300. But I do realize that computers are significantly more expensive in Europe.

My HP Pavilion x2's Atom Z3736F is a little slower than your Acer (benchmark score of 918), and it has only 2GB of RAM. But I too am surprised by its performance. I seldom do demanding tasks on my laptops anyway, so this Pavilion is adequate speed-wise. Its 1280x800 isn't friendly for multitasking though, which is why I will make sure I always have at least one additional laptop with FHD or higher (currently I have three: the 13.3" FHD Sony Pro13, the 17.0" WUXGA Gateway NX860X, and the 17.0" WUXGA HP 8740w).

Regarding the crappy touchpad, have you tried maximizing the pointer speed? I find that essential for all laptop touchpads.

[wisdomkeeper]

Assuming your Acer has the Celeron N2840, its benchmark score is 1056. In the U.S., it wouldn't be that hard to find a used business-class laptop that is at least that fast and has a battery lasting >6 hours, for $300. But I do realize that computers are significantly more expensive in Europe.

Lenovo X200 Intel P8600, 3GB DDR3, 160GB HDD, BT, ABGN WLAN - 230lv(133.68$) second hand. Intel P8600 - 1548 Pass Mark Points. New Battery for Lenovo X200(6cell, 5200mAh) - 76.5lv(44.46$) Total - 178$. These are the prices in Bulgaria.
But, honestly, you are right. Much of the consumer electronics is significantly more expensive than in US. Where I live, the price of one iPhone6 16GB is 1300lv(756$), but the price in US is only 199$. This is outrageous.
And..I loved the touchpads in the IBM T30/T4x series. Touchpads in the all other laptops are just crap compared to IBM. They all have low sensitivity and feel like cheap piece of plastic

[pianowizard]

Where I live, the price of one iPhone6 16GB is 1300lv(756$), but the price in US is only 199$. This is outrageous.

$199 requires a 2-year contract. At T-Mobile, a contract-less iPhone 6 currently costs $649.92.

And..I loved the touchpads in the IBM T30/T4x series. Touchpads in the all other laptops are just crap compared to IBM. They all have low sensitivity and feel like cheap piece of plastic

I did like the small size of the T4* touchpads. But what do you mean by sensitivity? If you mean how fast the pointer moves, it's something you can adjust in Windows' "Mouse properties". When using a touchpad, I always maximize pointer speed.

[wisdomkeeper]

Well, even with contract the price of the iPhone here is more than 700$. About the touchpad - I don't know how exactly to define it. It's just the feeling you get when you work with the touchpad. I tried one Lenovo(ideapad series) and it was awful. Even when I increase the touchpad sensitivity, it reacts somewhat strange / weird. Requires more pressure, it's so imprecise, needs more moves of the finger to move the pointer from one corner of the screen to the other, requires more force to be applied on the touchpad keys(mouse keys). Sometimes when you "tap-click" the pointer jumps/changes it's location. The last thing drives me crazy. Most of the touchpads in today's laptops are just such a ... cheap assembly. With such laptops I need to use external mouse, otherwise the work becomes so terribly painful. Even the keyboards are bad.
I used to work with my IBM T41 using touchpad for hours. With the new laptops I can't stand this even 10 minutes.

[DaKKS]

I hereby withdraw my earlier comment regarding the touchpad. It seems the "Advanced" features were interfering with my "Basic" brain. Once both Bios and Brain were set to the same parameters (Ie. Touchpad: Basic), it worked much better.

My biggest gripe was that the multi touch features interfered with the built in buttons, so if you tried to drag something by left clicking and dragging, the touchpad would freak out. Which made the computer completely unusable without an external mouse if you were writing and wanted to copy paste quickly. Now multi touch is disabled and I used the basic touchpad+two button setting. I lost scroll, but i use the arrow keys anyway, so whatever.

[Qing Dao]

Wise choice... 16:10 should cost much less than 4:3 because, as you said, it shouldn't require a drastic redesign of the rest of the laptop.

Changing the aspect ratio from 16:9 to either 16:10 or 4:3 is the same amount of work. It isn't as if one is more difficult to design for than the other. They both require a new motherboard and housing. The only issue that may arise from changing the aspect ratio is less potential parts compatibility with a previous generation model. If you want to get a feel for how it works out, just look at the T6X Thinkpads, which came in 16:10. 4:3, 14" and 15" models.

Yes, but Apple and Microsoft are paying a premium to obtain screens with unconventional aspect ratios. That's one of the reasons why Apple's 16:10 laptops and 4:3 iPads and Microsoft's 3:2 Surface Pro 3 are pricier than other brands' comparable products.

You seem to have the mentality that panel manufacturers only want to make 16:9 panels for some unknown reason and that anyone who wants something besides 16:9 needs to really twist their arm. Think about the dizzying amount of panel sizes, types, and resolutions produced by over a dozen large manufacturers. As far as panels go, Apple's 16:10 13" and 15" panels made by both LG and Samsung have a greater market share than most individual panels out there. There are also tons of different "custom" manufactured 16:9 panels out there, as in they have only one application. Panel manufacturers aren't the 16:9 cartel strong-arming computer, tablet, and phone manufacturers. They will produce whatever they can sell. Why do you think they moved from 4:3 to 16:10 and then 16:9? The customers demanded it.

Unfortunately, "HD" "Widescreen" and "16:9" are huge selling points to most of the population who even bat an eyelash about screen aspect ratio. Let's face it, we know that if a 4:3 laptop and a 16:9 laptop were sitting side-by-side at a Best Buy, 99% of people wouldn't even give the 4:3 laptop a second glance. The people who actually drive sales of new computers consider 16:10 to be outdated, and 4:3 to be positively ancient. If Lenovo made a new 4:3 or 16:10 laptop, people on a few internet forums would cheer, only a few of them would actually buy the thing, and in general the laptop would be a gigantic flop for the company. Only in that case would I say that a 4:3 screen would be "custom" and more expensive, because it would have an absolutely tiny production run.

[pianowizard]

Changing the aspect ratio from 16:9 to either 16:10 or 4:3 is the same amount of work.

No it's not. To convert a 16:9 laptop to 16:10, Lenovo could just reduce the bezel below the screen, and leave everything else unaltered. This is analogous to IBM offering both 14.1" 4:3 and 13.7" 5:4 for the 770X and 770Z -- the difference in aspect ratio was so small that the only modification required was the display bezel.

In theory Lenovo could use the same chassis for both 16:9 and 4:3, but the latter's screen would be flanked by a ridiculous amount of bezel.

If you want to get a feel for how it works out, just look at the T6X Thinkpads, which came in 16:10. 4:3, 14" and 15" models.

That's not the same as going from 16:9 to 16:10. See my explanation above.

You seem to have the mentality that panel manufacturers only want to make 16:9 panels for some unknown reason and that anyone who wants something besides 16:9 needs to really twist their arm.

It's not my mentality. I was just reporting facts. Special orders always cost more, including custom-ordered 16:9 panels. It doesn't really cost LCD manufacturers much more to produce unconventional panels, but they invariably take advantage of the opportunity to rip people off. That's just how the world works.

In addition to ripping people off, for screens of the same diagonal size, 16:9 ones have smaller surface areas than taller ones. The average user doesn't realize that a 13.3" 4:3 screen is much larger than a 13.3" 16:9 screen (84.9 vs. 75.6 square inches to be exact), so in a way it's indeed cheaper to make the latter.

Unfortunately, "HD" "Widescreen" and "16:9" are huge selling points to most of the population

16:10 and even 3:2 are still considered "widescreen" and thus marketable -- recall that Apple's first widescreen PowerBook G4 was 3:2 -- so what you said fails to explain why so few laptops have these aspect ratios.

[automobus]

In theory Lenovo could use the same chassis for both 16:9 and 4:3, but the latter's screen would be flanked by a ridiculous amount of bezel.

*edit: I revoke this statement.*
During a period of one or two years, Toshiba put out a line of chunky eight-pound laptops with choice of (15-inch 4:3, 15.4-inch 8:5) screen in same body.
*edit: I revoke this statement.*

I lied, that is not true. I think it was different models. I think, it was cheap/'budget' models of A series and M series Satellite. Base/bottom half was same, except for labels nameplate. Top/lid assembly had same exterior outline. Either model had large bezel, either top/bottom or right/left. Lid parts were not same (obviously), to fit different screen geometry. I want to think whole assembly could be exchanged/swapped to other model's base. But I do not know, I did not try (maybe different VBIOS or cable pinout). Really, I am spewing B.S.

I still believe that the TrackPoint is on the death row and that its execution has merely been postponed.

TrackPoint is an old dog, and IBM did not teach it any new tricks since sixteen years. Remember, TrackPoint IV became ThinkPad Standard at 1998. TrackPoint technology (sensitivity, stability, error detection, etc.) was advanced not at all. Don't we all wish for TrackPoint V? Well, if not 'we', at least I do wish.

Only thing Lenovo did with 'TrackPoint' is only in name: failed optical trackpoint for fondleslab.

[pianowizard]

During a period of one or two years, Toshiba put out a line of chunky eight-pound laptops with choice of (15-inch 4:3, 15.4-inch 8:5) screen in same body.

Wow, that sounds pretty bad! But using the same body for 16:9 and 4:3 would be even worse!

BTW, Dell's Inspiron 7500 used different lids for the 15.0" 4:3 and 15.4" 5:4 models, though they shared the same bottom chassis. The 5:4 lid (which my Inspiron 7500 has) sticks out on the back.

[Qing Dao]

Changing the aspect ratio from 16:9 to either 16:10 or 4:3 is the same amount of work.

No it's not. To convert a 16:9 laptop to 16:10, Lenovo could just reduce the bezel below the screen, and leave everything else unaltered. This is analogous to IBM offering both 14.1" 4:3 and 13.7" 5:4 for the 770X and 770Z -- the difference in aspect ratio was so small that the only modification required was the display bezel.

In theory Lenovo could use the same chassis for both 16:9 and 4:3, but the latter's screen would be flanked by a ridiculous amount of bezel.

If you are talking about converting any current 16:9 thinkpad to 16:10, there is no room. If you are talking about a new design that can allow either a 16:10 or a 16:9 option, that is going to require some very thick and strange bezels for any laptop made in 2015.

You seem to have the mentality that panel manufacturers only want to make 16:9 panels for some unknown reason and that anyone who wants something besides 16:9 needs to really twist their arm.

It's not my mentality. I was just reporting facts. Special orders always cost more, including custom-ordered 16:9 panels. It doesn't really cost LCD manufacturers much more to produce unconventional panels, but they invariably take advantage of the opportunity to rip people off. That's just how the world works.

In addition to ripping people off, for screens of the same diagonal size, 16:9 ones have smaller surface areas than taller ones. The average user doesn't realize that a 13.3" 4:3 screen is much larger than a 13.3" 16:9 screen (84.9 vs. 75.6 square inches to be exact), so in a way it's indeed cheaper to make the latter.

Reporting the facts? Where do you get these facts from? Are you privy to the contracts between laptop, tablet, and phone manufacturers and display panel manufacturers? It sounds to me more like you are inventing plausible explanations to justify your view of the subject. So the dozen or so large manufacturers of display panels have all agreed together to pump out 16:9 products and rip off anyone who wants anything else? Under your assumptions of their guilt, either they are running a cartel (illegal) or don't know how to do business (stupid).

Unfortunately, "HD" "Widescreen" and "16:9" are huge selling points to most of the population

16:10 and even 3:2 are still considered "widescreen" and thus marketable -- recall that Apple's first widescreen PowerBook G4 was 3:2 -- so what you said fails to explain why so few laptops have these aspect ratios.

The marketing term widescreen was the death knell of 4:3. I think you are trying to focus too much on my use of one word to convince yourself that you are right. EVERYTHING is widescreen these days, and it is pretty generic, but can sometimes be found as a fallback term for anything that isn't 16:9 as well as used as part of a 16:9 screen's marketing. The only marketing fallback Apple had for its 16:10 screens was by upping the resolution and calling them "retina displays." People want 16:9. You can't put positive spin on 16:10 with terms like HD, 720p, 900p, 1080p, 3k 4k, etc. After the television revolution where they all became 16:9 flat panel displays, 16:10's days were numbered. New 4:3 and 16:10 laptops aren't coming out because most people don't care, and of those who care about the aspect ratio, most choose 16:9. You may think that just because most people on this forum lament the loss of certain aspect ratios that everybody feels the same way, but they don't.

If there are so many people clamoring for a different aspect ratio, everyone knows that 16:9 is so awful, and the laptop manufacturers are on our side and want to make these products, why aren't there any out there? If I am going to throw down 2, 3, or 4 thousand dollars for a new laptop, how much can the panel manufacturer cartel really hold a different aspect ratio ransom for? If Apple was somehow able to convince two different cartel members to each pump out two different 16:10 laptop panels and still have really high profit margins on their Macbooks, why can't a much bigger player in the laptop market like Lenovo convince ONE cartel member to make ONE 16:10 panel for them? And how come the panel cartel doesn't play the same game with tablets? Who has ever heard of a 16:9 tablet?

What cause seems more convincing and stands up better to cursory scrutiny? Is it that there is a conspiracy by panel manufacturers colluding to stop us from getting 16:10 or 4:3 displays, or is it that no laptop manufacturer wants to make anything that isn't 16:9?

[brchan]

I think many consumers like to be able to watch movies, play games, and view media content on their laptops (in addition to doing work), hence the heavy use of widescreen displays. Laptops from the 90s to early 2000s were mostly used for work, and were out of the hands of most consumers. For work such as programming, writing, editing, and viewing text, 4:3 and 5:4 displays are best since they allow the most vertical lines to be displayed, without wasting horizontal space.

[lead_org]

Panel makers are businesses, they are driven by profit. As long there is money to be made they will do it. Laptop manufacturer can give you any screen size or aspect ratio as long as there is profit to be made. However, most people nowadays want everything dirt cheap, and this forces laptop manufacturer to be inventive in finding these savings and then passing it onto customers. Sometimes computer manufacturers would change design to save couple of cents.

If someone is to produce a classic ThinkPad like the design of the T60p. We are looking at 2800 to 3500 USD for volumes over 100,000 machines.

I think for the diehard fans, crowd funding will be the best model, where everyone pitch in for the model they want. This is also great for computer manufacturers, no need to worry about sale volume, no need for much marketing spend, no need to worry about how to recover initial cost in R&D.

[ajkula66]

If someone is to produce a classic ThinkPad like the design of the T60p. We are looking at 2800 to 3500 USD for volumes over 100,000 machines.

I'd be extremely curious to find out where these figures came from...

I think for the diehard fans, crowd funding will be the best model, where everyone pitch in for the model they want. This is also great for computer manufacturers, no need to worry about sale volume, no need for much marketing spend, no need to worry about how to recover initial cost in R&D.

Personally, I see that concept in the given scenario as an absolute non-starter, for several reasons.

BlackBerry - which is dirt poor when compared to Lenovo - didn't start a crowdfunding project when they decided to release The Classic. They trusted their diehard fans, and so far it appears that they were correct since Classic is on back order - at $400+ - in most places.

All that Lenovo would have to design is a new motherboard, and come up with cosmetically refreshed design of a T60 (just as an example), order a given number of screens - as per their own set of specs - from a manufacturer of their choice and call it a day. It's not like they would be expected to re-invent the wheel.

Getting 100K people to pony up $3K in advance while wondering whether the target number of users will be met is simply not going to happen. Lenovo won't get a single large corporation - some of which might be interested in a product of this nature if they were able to purchase it "off the shelf" - to participate in such a project.

Sorry boys and girls, but if a bunch of hobbyists in China could design a passable replacement motherboard for a T4x, I see absolutely no reason why Lenovo couldn't do a *lot* better on its own dime.

Call me cynical - because I am - but to me this sounds like a way to try and silence the diehard ThinkPad fans.

" We really wanted to re-create a Classic ThinkPad" but couldn't come up with 100K customers who would have been willing to pay for it upfront. So please don't bring up the 4:3/16:10 design and/or the 7-row keyboard ever again because it's not going to happen. "

While I would love to buy an updated version of some of the older ThinkPads that I own, I'm not putting up a single red cent towards such a crowdfund. Ever.

My $0.02 only...

[lead_org]

I am not sure how much the machine will cost if crowdfunded. It will be much cheaper, since basically they don't have to speculate and find customers first, they will also get a deposit for the machines they have not built yet.

Also, what hobbyists are doing amongst themselves are quite different to what a large company is doing for customers, a company must make money from what they do, hobbyists do not. I mean I get zero pay for volunteering in forums, but I can't expect staffs from companies to do the same. I think there is expectations and there is reality. The reality is that whatever a company does, it will costs more than what some people put together by themselves.

[ajkula66]

I am not sure how much the machine will cost if crowdfunded. It will be much cheaper, since basically they don't have to speculate and find customers first, they will also get a deposit for the machines they have not built yet.

I'd argue that with resources that Lenovo has available they would have a better chance of selling 100K pieces of ThinkPad Classic at $3K in a conventional manner than 50K pieces at $2K/per unit if crowdfunded.

The reality is that whatever a company does, it will costs more than what some people put together by themselves.

And that's one of the reasons why I'm stating that a crowdfund for a project of this nature is DOA.

[exTPfan]

To convert a 16:9 laptop to 16:10, Lenovo could just reduce the bezel below the screen, and leave everything else unaltered.

This is correct. For example:
an X61 laptop is 10.6x8.3 with a screen of 9.7x7.3 (inches);
an X220 laptop is 12x8.2 with a screen of 10.9x6.1.

Obviously, there's room on the X220 for a screen of 10.9x6.8, which is 16:10 (12.9 diagonal), or maybe even 10.9x7.3, which is 3:2 (13.4 diagonal).

An X1 carbon is 13x8.9 with a screen of 12.2x6.9. It should be possible to put a 12x8 screen on it (3:2 with an area 15% larger than the current screen.

When people complain about the black bars on a 16:10 screen, they don't notice the thick bezels that are built into their computers. 16:9 makes no sense from any point of view.

[pianowizard]

If you are talking about converting any current 16:9 thinkpad to 16:10, there is no room. If you are talking about a new design that can allow either a 16:10 or a 16:9 option, that is going to require some very thick and strange bezels for any laptop made in 2015.

See above for the excellent response from my Ann Arbor neighbor exTPfan. But let me add a few numbers to illustrate the fact that 16:9 and 16:10 aren't as different as you seem to think:

16:10 @ 13.3" = 11.28" x 7.05" (adds 0.155" each to the left and right bezels)
16:9 @ 13.3" = 11.59" x 6.52" (adds 0.265" each to the top and bottom bezels)

16:10 @ 15.4" = 13.06" x 8.16" (adds 0.270" each to the left and right bezels)
16:9 @ 15.6" = 13.60" x 7.65" (adds 0.255" each to the top and bottom bezels)

Reporting the facts? Where do you get these facts from? Are you privy to the contracts between laptop, tablet, and phone manufacturers and display panel manufacturers? It sounds to me more like you are inventing plausible explanations to justify your view of the subject. So the dozen or so large manufacturers of display panels have all agreed together to pump out 16:9 products and rip off anyone who wants anything else? Under your assumptions of their guilt, either they are running a cartel (illegal) or don't know how to do business (stupid).

LCD manufacturers have been caught doing exactly that (running a cartel):
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/busin ... XgFGt/F6nQ
http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/16/technol ... ettlement/

It's common knowledge that it's cheaper to make 16:9 panels, not only because they have smaller surface areas than 16:10 and 4:3 panels of the same diagonal size, but also because less material is wasted when a factory is focused on cutting panels of the same ratio (which currently happens to be 16:9). There are countless articles and blogs about this. You may have seen this widely circulated quote from a Samsung executive: "It is all about reducing manufacturing costs. The new 16:9 aspect ratio panels are more cost effective to manufacture locally than the previous 16:10 panels". Lenovo's own blogs touched on this issue during the transition to 16:9:

http://blog.lenovo.com/en/blog/display- ... ange-again
http://blog.lenovo.com/en/blog/collecte ... 41000-feet

Thus, it's a fact that LCD makers charge more for 16:10 and 4:3 panels. This kind of rip-off isn't illegal, because the panel manufacturers do need to be compensated for their wasted material, and for the inconvenience of reconfiguring production lines previously optimized for 16:9. I didn't mean ripping off on a cartel/trust level, but since the LCD industry has done that before, I wouldn't be surprised by it either.

The only marketing fallback Apple had for its 16:10 screens was by upping the resolution and calling them "retina displays."

Wrong. Apple had had no difficulty selling non-Retina 16:10 laptops before introducing Retina MacBooks. One of Apple's least successful years in recent history was actually the year it released the Retina models. Sales were so poor that it had to mark down the prices of all its laptops by $100 - $200, something Apple had almost never done before.

You can't put positive spin on 16:10 with terms like HD, 720p, 900p, 1080p, 3k 4k, etc.

"1200p" would have worked beautifully. Consumers would know it's better than 1080p, and manufacturers would only need to make 1080p displays a little taller (but not wider).

of those who care about the aspect ratio, most choose 16:9. You may think that just because most people on this forum lament the loss of certain aspect ratios that everybody feels the same way, but they don't.

No I don't think that. In fact, I myself have grown to like 16:9 a lot. For example, see http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=116718 .

If Apple was somehow able to convince two different cartel members to each pump out two different 16:10 laptop panels and still have really high profit margins on their Macbooks, why can't a much bigger player in the laptop market like Lenovo convince ONE cartel member to make ONE 16:10 panel for them?

Apple is a special case, because it has a cult following. It could switch all its laptops to 21:9 and fanboys would still buy them. Lenovo Thinkpads used to have a cult following, but that cult has all but disappeared.

And how come the panel cartel doesn't play the same game with tablets? Who has ever heard of a 16:9 tablet?

You haven't heard of 16:9 tablets? I just did a search on Newegg and found these numbers:

245 4:3 tablets
281 16:10 tablets
1081 16:9 tablets

For laptops, 16:9 isn't ideal but still reasonable. For tablets, 16:9 is much worse because it makes them very narrow in portrait orientation. Think about it, even SVGA (800x600) from the late 1980s had more columns of pixels than 768x1366 (HD in portrait)! Yet the vast majority of tablets are 16:9, and we aren't just talking about tablets made by obscure brands: Microsoft's Surface 1 and 2 including the Pro versions, Asus' T100TA which is probably the best-selling 2-in-1 (not because it's narrow, but because it's one of the cheapest and lightest), Dell's Venue 11 Pro, Lenovo's Thinkpad Tablet 2 and Lynx, and many others. Big-name companies opting for a very lousy display ratio for their tablets; go figure.

What cause seems more convincing and stands up better to cursory scrutiny? Is it that there is a conspiracy by panel manufacturers colluding to stop us from getting 16:10 or 4:3 displays, or is it that no laptop manufacturer wants to make anything that isn't 16:9?

According to laptop manufacturers, it's the former. Granted, these laptop manufacturers could be lying. Some members of this forum still resent Lenovo for abandoning taller screens, and so they choose to believe that Lenovo lied about this. But since I am quite happy with the migration to 16:9, I have no grudge against any laptop brands and buy the "conspiracy" explanation.

[MacNews]

I am glad Lenovo is bringing back trackpoint buttons in this years models.

I find it odd and even a bit offensive that the Lenovo Y50 has a better, more traditional keyboard layout than the ThinkPad series:

http://s2.postimg.org/w1bcn47ih/Lenovo_Y50.png

Why wouldn't users want to easily move between typing on their laptop to typing on their desktop?

[wisdomkeeper]

Why wouldn't users want to easily move between typing on their laptop to typing on their desktop?

I don't have a desktop computer. I use only laptops. I don't have any problems with Thinkpad keyboard layouts. I am IBM Thinkpad user since X20 series, one of my first laptops was X21 with P3, 384RAM(upgrade) and 20GB IBM Travelstar.