Take a look at our
ThinkPads.com HOME PAGE
For those who might want to contribute to the blog, start here: Editors Alley Topic
Then contact Bill with a Private Message

Screen sizes

Performance, hardware, software, general buying and gaming discussion..
Post Reply
Message
Author
MikalE
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1214
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Marissa, Illinois

Screen sizes

#1 Post by MikalE » Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:38 am

I'm sitting here this morning drinking my coffee and have three Thinkpads on my desk on turned on.

My prized A31p, my hot rodded T520, and my near mint Super T500.

As I look around at the displays my eyes gravitate towards the T500 every time. I can't believe the real estate of this screen compared to the other two.

It makes me not even want to use the T520, and prefer even the A31p screen size to the T520. The height of the A31p screen is nice, but it doesn't have the width of the T500.

What the heck is wrong with Lenovo eliminating the screen size of the T500 era computers??? What were they thinking? Why is that extra inch they carved off so darn important that they would sacrifice that much real estate on a display?

Rant over.
A31p P-IV 2Ghz 2653-R6U
T500 T9600 2055-BE9
T510 i5 4384-DV7
T510 i7 4349-A64
T520 i7QM 4242-4UU Highly Modified

dr_st
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 6:20 am
Location: Israel

Re: Screen sizes

#2 Post by dr_st » Wed Jun 24, 2020 9:32 am

MikalE wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:38 am
What the heck is wrong with Lenovo eliminating the screen size of the T500 era computers??? What were they thinking?
It's nothing specific to Lenovo. Everyone went the same route, except Apple, which has always been different.
Thinkpad 25 (20K7), X1 Carbon (20HQ), Yoga 14 (20FY), T430s (IPS FHD + Classic Keyboard), X220 4291-4BG
X61 7673-V2V, T60 2007-QPG, T42 2373-F7G, X32 (IPS Screen), A31p w/ Ultrabay Numpad, A21m 2628-GXU

RealBlackStuff
Admin Emeritus
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 21170
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:17 am
Location: Dublin, Éire
Contact:

Re: Screen sizes

#3 Post by RealBlackStuff » Wed Jun 24, 2020 9:50 am

It's because the unwashed masses wanted to watch movies on their laptops, that 16:9 became so popular.
They should have limited that 16:9 to consumer laptops, and keep 16:10 for business laptops.
But all computer companies are ruled by short-sighted penny-pinchers, who want to save everywhere they can.
Lovely day for a Guinness! (the Real Black Stuff). And pigs CAN fly!
Check out The Boardroom for Parts, Mods and Other Services.

cadillacmike68
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1042
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 9:19 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Screen sizes

#4 Post by cadillacmike68 » Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:06 pm

T510 or earlier for a 16:10 screen.

But neither has built in USB3
600
760LD FUBARd
T21 2647 T22 2647 4@ 900MHz, 1@ 1GHz SXGA+; T23 2647 2@ 1.13GHz, 1@ 1.2GHz SXGA+
T30 2366-88U 2GHz; 2366-83U 1.8G; 5@ 2366-LU0/66U; 2367-KU6 FUBARd
T41 T42 T43
T61 8897 2.4GHz SXGA+; 8898 2.4Ghz; 6463 2@ WSXGA+; 7658 2.5GHz; T61p; 6 more T61s
T500 2
T530 W530

MikalE
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1214
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Marissa, Illinois

Re: Screen sizes

#5 Post by MikalE » Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:35 pm

The screen size of my T510's is not the same as my T500.
A31p P-IV 2Ghz 2653-R6U
T500 T9600 2055-BE9
T510 i5 4384-DV7
T510 i7 4349-A64
T520 i7QM 4242-4UU Highly Modified

cadillacmike68
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1042
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 9:19 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Screen sizes

#6 Post by cadillacmike68 » Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:27 pm

They are both 16:10 ratio, at least that's what I thought.
600
760LD FUBARd
T21 2647 T22 2647 4@ 900MHz, 1@ 1GHz SXGA+; T23 2647 2@ 1.13GHz, 1@ 1.2GHz SXGA+
T30 2366-88U 2GHz; 2366-83U 1.8G; 5@ 2366-LU0/66U; 2367-KU6 FUBARd
T41 T42 T43
T61 8897 2.4GHz SXGA+; 8898 2.4Ghz; 6463 2@ WSXGA+; 7658 2.5GHz; T61p; 6 more T61s
T500 2
T530 W530

ThreeIguanasPerSecond
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2019 4:17 am
Location: Washington, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Screen sizes

#7 Post by ThreeIguanasPerSecond » Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:12 pm

MikalE wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:38 am
It makes me not even want to use the T520, and prefer even the A31p screen size to the T520. The height of the A31p screen is nice, but it doesn't have the width of the T500.
...and it doesn't have the width of your T520's display panel (heh, the catch is that it applies only to the low-end 1366x768 panels). it's a just matter of trade-offs. exaggerating the difference doesn't make it true, does it?

you can rant all you want about how 1680x1050 beats 1600x900, or 1920x1200 beats 1920x1080. however those were old display resolutions in the past, so why exactly are you ranting about old panels beating old panels? you do like height (and width to some extent), so why don't you get a reasonably modern laptop with a 2880x1620 display panel? or a laptop with a 3840x2160 display panel? what makes it so, so very difficult to simply switch to a machine that has what you desire most at the moment?
MikalE wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:38 am
Why is that extra inch they carved off so darn important that they would sacrifice that much real estate on a display?
that much? you call it that much?

if we were to head back a decade ago, where most high-end laptops came with either 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 display panels... it's really trivial. you do lose 230,400 pixels, but in the end, it's simply 120 horizontal lines that has been lost. it's TEN PERCENT of HEIGHT that you lose, and from the way you phrased your opinion, it seemed like they ripped off more than 10% of the height available. am i not wrong to assume that this is just pure exaggeration over something minor? or do i simply lack the mental gymnastics required to understand that losing 10% of height is unacceptable?
2011~2013: R40 (2724-BAG) || 2014~2016: SL510 (2847-9AG) || 2020~????: ProBook 645 G1

"There is always you can not think of the low price." - JD.com

dr_st
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 6:20 am
Location: Israel

Re: Screen sizes

#8 Post by dr_st » Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:29 pm

cadillacmike68 wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:27 pm
They are both 16:10 ratio, at least that's what I thought.
No. T510 already changed to 16:9, unlike T410.
Thinkpad 25 (20K7), X1 Carbon (20HQ), Yoga 14 (20FY), T430s (IPS FHD + Classic Keyboard), X220 4291-4BG
X61 7673-V2V, T60 2007-QPG, T42 2373-F7G, X32 (IPS Screen), A31p w/ Ultrabay Numpad, A21m 2628-GXU

MikalE
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1214
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Marissa, Illinois

Re: Screen sizes

#9 Post by MikalE » Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:58 pm

ThreeIguanasPerSecond wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:12 pm
MikalE wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:38 am
It makes me not even want to use the T520, and prefer even the A31p screen size to the T520. The height of the A31p screen is nice, but it doesn't have the width of the T500.
...and it doesn't have the width of your T520's display panel (heh, the catch is that it applies only to the low-end 1366x768 panels). it's a just matter of trade-offs. exaggerating the difference doesn't make it true, does it?

you can rant all you want about how 1680x1050 beats 1600x900, or 1920x1200 beats 1920x1080. however those were old display resolutions in the past, so why exactly are you ranting about old panels beating old panels? you do like height (and width to some extent), so why don't you get a reasonably modern laptop with a 2880x1620 display panel? or a laptop with a 3840x2160 display panel? what makes it so, so very difficult to simply switch to a machine that has what you desire most at the moment?
MikalE wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:38 am
Why is that extra inch they carved off so darn important that they would sacrifice that much real estate on a display?
that much? you call it that much?

if we were to head back a decade ago, where most high-end laptops came with either 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 display panels... it's really trivial. you do lose 230,400 pixels, but in the end, it's simply 120 horizontal lines that has been lost. it's TEN PERCENT of HEIGHT that you lose, and from the way you phrased your opinion, it seemed like they ripped off more than 10% of the height available. am i not wrong to assume that this is just pure exaggeration over something minor? or do i simply lack the mental gymnastics required to understand that losing 10% of height is unacceptable?
I'm talking about the physical size of the screen. I don't give a crap about resolution. I can make that anything I want within the limits of the GPU.
A31p P-IV 2Ghz 2653-R6U
T500 T9600 2055-BE9
T510 i5 4384-DV7
T510 i7 4349-A64
T520 i7QM 4242-4UU Highly Modified

cadillacmike68
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1042
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 9:19 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Screen sizes

#10 Post by cadillacmike68 » Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:35 pm

For me is it both. I like the larger overall screens so I go for T/W5xx and not T4xx.

But the aspect ratio is also very crucial to me with regard to working with any large spreadsheet. That extra 11% of highly usable vertical space makes a huge difference to me and many others.
600
760LD FUBARd
T21 2647 T22 2647 4@ 900MHz, 1@ 1GHz SXGA+; T23 2647 2@ 1.13GHz, 1@ 1.2GHz SXGA+
T30 2366-88U 2GHz; 2366-83U 1.8G; 5@ 2366-LU0/66U; 2367-KU6 FUBARd
T41 T42 T43
T61 8897 2.4GHz SXGA+; 8898 2.4Ghz; 6463 2@ WSXGA+; 7658 2.5GHz; T61p; 6 more T61s
T500 2
T530 W530

MikalE
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1214
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Marissa, Illinois

Re: Screen sizes

#11 Post by MikalE » Wed Jun 24, 2020 7:38 pm

Yes,it does. I only know what I like, and not what the industry want's me to like with a small 15.6 screen that is so low that you have to scroll two pages for what you used to have to scroll one page.

I'll take a T500 screen over anything anyone else has produced since then.
A31p P-IV 2Ghz 2653-R6U
T500 T9600 2055-BE9
T510 i5 4384-DV7
T510 i7 4349-A64
T520 i7QM 4242-4UU Highly Modified

TPFanatic
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1409
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:29 pm
Location: Boston, Massachusetts

Re: Screen sizes

#12 Post by TPFanatic » Wed Jun 24, 2020 9:25 pm

I am a T500 fan myself, but it's a shame the brightness, vividness, thickness, and power usage of the T500 screens are inferior in every way to newer offerings. I did an LED mod on one of my LP154WU1-TLC2s but it was a cheap one and ultimately more trouble than it was worth, and more damaging than beneficial, but at least the platform was useful to me even if just to experiment with. I'd already moved on to the likes of T420 and T430s with IPS mods, which are so much faster than the old Montevina chipset. The 2560x1440 mod for T420/T430/T420s/T430s is superior to anything I could plug and play in a T500, and I tried a number of screens. T500 is a remarkable machine, the culmination of the golden age (IBM-like) ThinkPad designs, but for a number of reasons it unfortunately does not age well. Two cores, two threads is now feasible for only basic tasks, either GPU is useful only for niche applications, it's heavy, batteries don't last long, hinges wear out quickly or get stuck, and the lid's magnesium cracks around the left hinge.
lenovo T420 i7 2670qm 16GB QHD + eGPU GTX 960
lenovo T430s i5 3230m 16GB QHD w/ optimus(RIP), lenovo T430 i5 3320m 8GB FHD, lenovo T500 P9700 8GB WUXGA(LED) w/ switchable graphics
Enable 2 finger scroll on old Synaptics touchpads with registry.

axur-delmeria
Senior ThinkPadder
Senior ThinkPadder
Posts: 2598
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:49 am
Location: Metro Manila, Philippines

Re: Screen sizes

#13 Post by axur-delmeria » Wed Jun 24, 2020 10:47 pm

Someone succeeded in upgrading an R400 to a Q9000 by flashing Coreboot: https://www.reddit.com/r/thinkpad/comme ... d_success/.

It's possible that it would work on the T500 as well. That'll give some more CPU oomph. :banana:
Daily driver: X220 4291-C91 i7-2620M

Backup: X601 Core 2 Duo T8100
Toy: X60F Core Solo U1300
On loan: X220 4291-P79 i5-2520M
In pieces: two retired but working X61Ts
RIP: 760XD 9546-U9E; X61 7676-A24; and a BOE-Hydis HV121P01-100 in failed SXGA+ mod
:cry:

RealBlackStuff
Admin Emeritus
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 21170
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:17 am
Location: Dublin, Éire
Contact:

Re: Screen sizes

#14 Post by RealBlackStuff » Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:32 am

Like I have mentioned many times before, put a Sharp lq154m1lw2a or lq154m1lw02 in the 15.4" 16:10 machines, they are way better than any Lenovo-supplied ones.
Lovely day for a Guinness! (the Real Black Stuff). And pigs CAN fly!
Check out The Boardroom for Parts, Mods and Other Services.

zoltan87
Sophomore Member
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:16 pm
Location: Plymouth, United Kingdom

Re: Screen sizes

#15 Post by zoltan87 » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:01 am

ThreeIguanasPerSecond wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:12 pm
MikalE wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:38 am
It makes me not even want to use the T520, and prefer even the A31p screen size to the T520. The height of the A31p screen is nice, but it doesn't have the width of the T500.
...and it doesn't have the width of your T520's display panel (heh, the catch is that it applies only to the low-end 1366x768 panels). it's a just matter of trade-offs. exaggerating the difference doesn't make it true, does it?

you can rant all you want about how 1680x1050 beats 1600x900, or 1920x1200 beats 1920x1080. however those were old display resolutions in the past, so why exactly are you ranting about old panels beating old panels? you do like height (and width to some extent), so why don't you get a reasonably modern laptop with a 2880x1620 display panel? or a laptop with a 3840x2160 display panel? what makes it so, so very difficult to simply switch to a machine that has what you desire most at the moment?
MikalE wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:38 am
Why is that extra inch they carved off so darn important that they would sacrifice that much real estate on a display?
that much? you call it that much?

if we were to head back a decade ago, where most high-end laptops came with either 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 display panels... it's really trivial. you do lose 230,400 pixels, but in the end, it's simply 120 horizontal lines that has been lost. it's TEN PERCENT of HEIGHT that you lose, and from the way you phrased your opinion, it seemed like they ripped off more than 10% of the height available. am i not wrong to assume that this is just pure exaggeration over something minor? or do i simply lack the mental gymnastics required to understand that losing 10% of height is unacceptable?
In reality that 10% loss in vertical space translates to quite a bit more workspace loss. Taskbar, window header, toolboxes etc. are all a given and reduce the useful space from the actual screen area where you do your work. So if you compare the available height of the actual work areas between these different aspect ratios, the 16:9 offering comes out a lot worse than it would first seem. One has to come up with all kinds of patchwork solutions for this situation, like making the taskbar hidden (I hate that), rearrange the toolbox etc. For many of us it's just way too inconvenient and a headache, especially if someone like me has a desktop setup with a 16:10 monitor, as the different layouts between systems would be just a source of constant frustration.

Also I never understood the screen resolution excuse: the fact that a modern 16:9 screen has plenty of vertical pixels, doesn't help much, as you can't go under a certain size with the displayed content, you will just tire out your eyes. I will admit I am somewhat unique in that I have pretty bad eyes, and get headache from screens easily. For me the 1600 x 1200 resolution on a 15 inch screen is the limit, anything more pixel dense than that is just too small, and have to adjust the sizing in Windows to compensate for too small objects and text. I envy those people who can work comfortably on a screen where everything is microscopic for an average human being.
Thinkpad T60, 15" Flexview, with mods (Xiphmont's LED mod, T500 heatsink, cpu undervolt, reinforced frame)
Thinkpad T601, 15" Flexview, with mods (Xiphmont's LED mod, T500 heatsink, cpu pin mod for FSB change and undervolt, reinforced frame)
Thinkpad X32
Thinkpad A21e
NEC ProSpeed SX/20

RealBlackStuff
Admin Emeritus
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 21170
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:17 am
Location: Dublin, Éire
Contact:

Re: Screen sizes

#16 Post by RealBlackStuff » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:49 am

-You can move the taskbar to the (vertical) side.
-You can use Adblock etc. to remove unwanted images etc. from the page-header and make it narrower.
-You can untick some toolbar(s) in the View option of the browser
-You can use Ctrl-F1 to minimize the ribbon bar in M$-Office.
The above would give you at least 10% more vertical space.
Lovely day for a Guinness! (the Real Black Stuff). And pigs CAN fly!
Check out The Boardroom for Parts, Mods and Other Services.

dr_st
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 6:20 am
Location: Israel

Re: Screen sizes

#17 Post by dr_st » Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:13 am

zoltan87 wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:01 am
Also I never understood the screen resolution excuse: the fact that a modern 16:9 screen has plenty of vertical pixels, doesn't help much, as you can't go under a certain size with the displayed content, you will just tire out your eyes.
There are tasks that are more resolution-bound and others that are more screen shape-bound. This is not a "one-size fits all" or "bigger / taller / wider is always better" situation.
Thinkpad 25 (20K7), X1 Carbon (20HQ), Yoga 14 (20FY), T430s (IPS FHD + Classic Keyboard), X220 4291-4BG
X61 7673-V2V, T60 2007-QPG, T42 2373-F7G, X32 (IPS Screen), A31p w/ Ultrabay Numpad, A21m 2628-GXU

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Thinkpad - General HARDWARE/SOFTWARE questions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests