Reasons why the 14" screen got terrible options.

[Thinkpad4by3]

Ok, so the 15" models ranging back to the early A's had nice screens. Nice high-res UXGA LCD @ ~135ppi OR a QXGA LCD @ 170ppi (IPS). Then the X60 came with its SXGA+ 12.1" LCD. Around ~145dpi (IPS). Now the there is the 14" 1400x1050 at ~120ppi with NO IPS. 

Then there was the 16:10 change. Same thing happened. 1920x1200 @ 150ppi(very nice). Then the X200s got 1440x900 @ 140ppi(eh). Then the 14" got ~120ppi(Junk) max.

Then to 16:9. X230 got 1366x768 @ 135ppi (IPS). W530 FHD @ 141ppi. (Very nice TN) T430 got HD+ @ 130ppi(JUNK).

Why did no 14" Laptop ever get a nice 140+ ppi display until the T440p? 14" was a very popular size while it only got a junk LCD.

[TPFanatic]

Don't forget the worst viewing angles, contrast, and tendency to cause eye strain!

I read a notebookreview thread from 2006 where they said, and I'm not sure how accurate this is, but that Lenovo wanted a 14" 1680x1050 made?? That would have been amazing if it existed. 1440x900 is so stupid a resolution, it's less pixels / usable than even 1280x1024! Hell, I like 1280x800 more than 1440x900. 1600x900 too is terrible.

[ajkula66]

but that Lenovo wanted a 14" 1680x1050 made?? That would have been amazing if it existed.

I could never wrap my head around the fact that no one came out with this type of screen. It would've been a winner IMO, but what do I know...

1440x900 is so stupid a resolution, it's less pixels / usable than even 1280x1024! Hell, I like 1280x800 more than 1440x900. 1600x900 too is terrible.

Yep. Anything under 1000 is a joke, and not a particularly good one.

[Thinkpad4by3]

What I don't get is why do phones get 4K LCDs but the X270 can't get better than FHD. Then there is the Dell Monitor (32" @ 8K) at over 300ppi. Wow, why don't any Laptops have it. Also, @ajkula66, here is why microscopes were invented: 1) To see micro-organisms. 2) To see Windows XP icons on the worlds smallest QXGA display: Forth Dimension QXGA-R9. Over 3000ppi at 0.83".

Now they have this amazing technology, while laptops are stuck with base model crap.....

[pianowizard]

why don't any Laptops have it. ...Now they have this amazing technology, while laptops are stuck with base model crap....

Dell has 12.5" UHD laptops. That's 352.5 DPI.

[Thinkpad4by3]

why don't any Laptops have it. ...Now they have this amazing technology, while laptops are stuck with base model crap....

Dell has 12.5" UHD laptops. That's 352.5 DPI.

Ok, but does it have a Trackpoint?

[CASPER]

.....

[pianowizard]

Then there is the Dell Monitor (32" @ 8K) at over 300ppi.

Actually, that 31.5" 7680x4320 Dell UP3218K monitor is only 279.7 DPI. If you want a trackpoint-equipped laptop exceeding that pixel density, there are plenty of 15.6" 3840x2160 (282.4 DPI) ones to choose from.

But I do agree somewhat with your thread title. There are UHD panels for 12.5", 13.3" and 15.6" laptops, but not 14-inchers. The highest resolutions for 14.* are 14.0" 3200x1800 (262.3 DPI) and 14.0" 2560x1440 (209.8 DPI).

[Thinkpad4by3]

Then there is the Dell Monitor (32" @ 8K) at over 300ppi.

Actually, that 31.5" 7680x4320 Dell UP3218K monitor is only 279.7 DPI. If you want a trackpoint-equipped laptop exceeding that pixel density, there are plenty of 15.6" 3840x2160 (282.4 DPI) ones to choose from.

But I do agree somewhat with your thread title. There are UHD panels for 12.5", 13.3" and 15.6" laptops, but not 14-inchers. The highest resolutions for 14.* are 14.0" 3200x1800 (262.3 DPI) and 14.0" 2560x1440 (209.8 DPI).

It seems LCD screens got really good the same year that Thinkpads went to hell. Whyyyyyy........

[CASPER]

Let me ask you a question. Why do you need so high resolution on that small screen? I have 1920x1200 on 15,4 in and sometimes can barely see what is written on a web page. And scaling in W$ is crap, lets be honest.

[exTPfan]

My impression (from my own experience and looking at the literature) is that 140dpi is optimal for someone with 20/20 vision viewing a screen at 22 inches. That means that 280dpi would be optimal for 20/10 vision with the screen at 22 inches, or for 20/20 vision viewing a tablet or phone at 11 inches. Anything more is pointless.
[Happy to be in agreement (more-or-less) with Steve Jobs. When they test your eyes the charts usually only go to 20/20, which is often considered "perfect". However, 20/15 and even 20/10 are not uncommon, especially among young people. Anything between 20/10 and 20/30 is considered normal. This is a huge range (three:one) which helps explain the differences of opinion on what is optimal.]

[Thinkpad4by3]

My impression (from my own experience and looking at the literature) is that 140dpi is optimal for someone with 20/20 vision viewing a screen at 22 inches. That means that 280dpi would be optimal for 20/10 vision with the screen at 22 inches, or for 20/20 vision viewing a tablet or phone at 11 inches. Anything more is pointless.

I use my X220 like a big tablet, and sit closer than most people do to their Laptop, so a higher dpi would be great for me. When Im sitting at my nice 24" 16:10 monitors, they take up almost my entire field of view.

[fatpolomanjr]

Was there an X60 with SXGA+ IPS display? Or just the tablet version? The reason there is because tablet displays have special quality needs compared to regular laptops. Even the XGA found on X60 tablets are better than the non-tablet X60.

[Thinkpad4by3]

Was there an X60 with SXGA+ IPS display? Or just the tablet version? The reason there is because tablet displays have special quality needs compared to regular laptops. Even the XGA found on X60 tablets are better than the non-tablet X60.

The point is that you could put it in the X60 non-tablet. Point still holds with QXGA in T60. QXGA was never in a T60, only R50p.

[pianowizard]

My impression (from my own experience and looking at the literature) is that 140dpi is optimal for someone with 20/20 vision viewing a screen at 22 inches. That means that 280dpi would be optimal for 20/10 vision with the screen at 22 inches, or for 20/20 vision viewing a tablet or phone at 11 inches.

Let me quote from this Wikipedia article: "When introducing the iPhone 4, Steve Jobs said the number of pixels needed for a Retina Display is about 300 PPI for a device held 10 to 12 inches from the eye". That was back in 2010 and I recall a discussion about it here on the Thinkpad forum. Using calculations based on typical human visual acuities, I confirmed that Jobs was correct. Thus, if 300 DPI achieves "retina" sharpness for a device viewed at ~11 inches from the eye, 150 DPI would be sufficient if viewed at ~22 inches. In this sense, 15.4" 1920x1200 (147 PPI) is optimal. But see my next comment:

UPDATE: I just found that discussion about Steve Jobs' "retina" claim: viewtopic.php?p=537928

Anything more is pointless.

"Pointless" if your goal is merely to avoid seeing individual pixels. But some of us want high resolutions because we want the screen to display more information, even if things look smaller. Hence, when using Windows without scaling, my ideal pixel densities are 105 - 120 DPI for desktop monitors (viewed at >2 feet), 170 - 200 DPI for laptops and tablets (<2 feet), and as high as possible for smartphones (<1 foot).

Point still holds with QXGA in T60. QXGA was never in a T60, only R50p.

That QXGA panel was a pain to use, not because of its 170.7 pixel density, but because it was so dim and dull. The 213.7 DPI 10.8" 1920x1280 screen of my Surface 3 is more pleasant to use.

[Thinkpad4by3]

For smartphones, more than 447 is pointless because even putting your eye to the screen you still wont see pixela and on a phone, you will see the same content at the same scale anyway.

[fourthree]

Dunno bout you, but my XGA X61 (CCFL TN, not IPS) is perfect with a small font. My old phone similarly does well.

24" FHD desktop is meh.
UXGA frankie is excellent, but my X61 is still much easier on the eyes.

Not sure what magic is that, but there you go.

[pianowizard]

on a phone, you will see the same content at the same scale anyway.

You are thinking of phone menus and apps that show the same contents on the entire screen regardless of resolution. I was talking about situations where that's not the case, e.g. internet browsers, PDF readers, Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, etc., where you can zoom out to see more text. If the DPI is high, you can zoom way out and the text is still legible, so that you can see many lines of text on the screen. If the DPI is low, you can't zoom out much before the phone runs out of pixels to construct each letter, number or symbol legibly.

[ajkula66]

Let me ask you a question. Why do you need so high resolution on that small screen?

I've been wondering about the same thing for years now...

I have 1920x1200 on 15,4 in and sometimes can barely see what is written on a web page.

Yep. WUXGA on a 15.4" is pretty much the limit that I'm able to tolerate myself.

And scaling in W$ is crap, lets be honest.

That's putting it mildly...one aspect of computing reality where OSX - which I neither like nor use - is vastly superior.

IDK...my phone is used for talk and text only, I despise tablets generally speaking - excluding convertibles - and still appreciate a laptop with a decent, usable screen more than anything else. I guess that's just asking too much nowadays...

[Thinkpad4by3]

Hey, what about the Thinkpad 700T, doesn't that get any credit here? JK, its not a useless hunk of junk like the iPad is.

I never really use my phone for anything more than text reading and when I do, I just blow it up all the way because face it, a 4.7" screen for reading text is difficult at any size less than huge. My little 260~ Dpi never gives me any hurdles for reading text even when its super small and giving me eye strain.

And for WUXGA, Ive never experienced it at 15.4" but on the W700 its nice to look at. Not terribly small but small enough to fit a lot of stuff on the page.

[unixed]

There was a 14.1" SXGA+ flexview (124.1 DPI) planned by BOE HYDIS but unfortunately didn't go into production.
That chicken was named "HV141P01" before it was hatched.

[ajkula66]

There was a 14.1" SXGA+ flexview (124.1 DPI) planned by BOE HYDIS but unfortunately didn't go into production.
That chicken was named "HV141P01" before it was hatched.

Yep quite a few of us have been crying about what was lost there for a decade now...

[Thinkpad4by3]

There was a 14.1" SXGA+ flexview (124.1 DPI) planned by BOE HYDIS but unfortunately didn't go into production.
That chicken was named "HV141P01" before it was hatched.

Yep quite a few of us have been crying about what was lost there for a decade now...

Hey, we all got the LTN141U. Does that count for anything even though its ultra-rare?

[kfzhu1229]

I guess the terrible 14" screen tradition started after IBM restructured their series. The T2x at that time are the popular affordable mainstream machine, while the A2xp at that time are the workstation machines with highest specs as they can go. Cranking that much of stuff inside there requires a larger body as possible, therefore they had the 15" and started the IPS flare too with A30p. Well isn't this trend true for other stuff such as Google Pixel vs Pixel XL? Galaxy S5 vs. Galaxy Note 4? all the regular iPhones vs. their plus brothers? This is also true on desktops as well with the bigger towers featuring more expansion room and better PSU. This tendency tends to make me buy the larger brother all the time because I am the kind of person who wants a large stuff that looks cool over a small tiny portable stuff anyway. Well also with the ThinkPad lineup, Lenovo kept almost everything as original as possible, whether it's good stuff or bad stuff, while Dell and HP basically does major changes the looks every few years or so. But seriously, aside from the price, I don't see why you should buy the 14" version over the 15" version. Sure it is a bit thinner, but thickness doesn't matter to most folks here anyway.

[ZaZ]

I run my 14" FHD screen at 125% DPI as it's more palatabible to the eyes. I can run in FHD mode for a while, but then the eyes start to hurt a bit. I'd rather be more comfortable than fit the most on my screen. I've always though 125 DPI was just about perfect for a notebook, which is a 14" SXGA+ IPS notebook would be killer, being that more resolution on the top and bottom is preferable to more on the sides.

[Thinkpad4by3]

Only if LCD screens could be trimmed down like EL Pads. Just use scissors.

http://i.imgur.com/xLsqZNw.png

[kfzhu1229]

Get a 14.1" laptop and:
1. cut out the plastics that prevent from using 15" cables and use a UXGA one.
2. twist the long metal on the right hinge by 90 degrees to lay it behind the LCD.
3. cut out all the barriers on the top right edges of the lid
4. tuck 15" IPS LCD in
5. get an IPS inverter
6. put back the 14.1" screen bezel
now you have a 14.1" 1504*1128 IPS display inside your computer.

[Thinkpad4by3]

Does Middleton support the hardware resolution scaling????

[pianowizard]

I've been wondering about the same thing for years now...

Even though people have been explaining for years why they want high res? Here's my most recent answer, just three posts above yours: "some of us want high resolutions because we want the screen to display more information, even if things look smaller."

I never really use my phone for anything more than text reading

By "text reading" you mean SMS messages? PDF, web sites and Office documents are mostly text reading as well, and I prefer to see lots of text on the screen so I don't need to scroll too much.

and when I do, I just blow it up all the way because face it, a 4.7" screen for reading text is difficult at any size less than huge. My little 260~ Dpi never gives me any hurdles for reading text even when its super small and giving me eye strain.

I don't "face it" the way you do. I want to see more text on the screen, sometimes even for SMS messages, and don't mind some degree of eye strain. But 4.7" would be way too small for me. Currently my main phone is 7.0" 1200x1920 (323.5 DPI), my secondary phone is 6.3" 720x1280 (233.1 DPI), and my backup phone is 6.44" 1080x1920 (342.1 DPI).

BTW, what 4.7" phone gives 260 DPI? On phonearena.com, I could find 4.7" phones that are either much higher than 260 DPI (720x1280 = 312.5 DPI) or much lower than 260 DPI (540x960 = 234.4 DPI).

Hey, we all got the LTN141U. Does that count for anything even though its ultra-rare?

I had a 14.1" UXGA panel on my T42 for a while. Good resolution, but terrible contrast. It's among the most washed-out LCD panels I have ever seen.

But seriously, aside from the price, I don't see why you should buy the 14" version over the 15" version. Sure it is a bit thinner, but thickness doesn't matter to most folks here anyway.

Seriously, you haven't considered weight or size? The lightest 14.0" Thinkpad weighs almost 2 lbs less than the lightest 15.6" Thinkpad, and 15.6" laptops require larger carrying cases than 14.0" laptops. For traveling I can tolerate 14-inchers -- I used to carry one of my 3.3 lb 14.1" SXGA+ Panasonic Toughbooks -- but 15-inchers are out of the question.

[Thinkpad4by3]

Hold on, let me clarify. I use my phone to read text on webpages, like Wikipedia or this forum. I don't use my phone very often to stream video, or other internet intensive tasks. I rather just keep scrolling with the text blown up than have lots of small text on a page.