Thinkpads Forum

nonny wrote:C'mon guys - not every forum member speaks or write English fluently. Don't make fun.

Point well taken...

kjjb0204 wrote:FYI - T60P WSXGA to be introduced in November. T61P WUXGA coming spring 2007. 14.1 T60P still planned to build through July 2007.

Will that WSXGA one be available as 14" widescreen?

True, so true. I was thinking he was just dumb, not a FES. I can forgive FES.

archer6 wrote:

RonS wrote:I laughed so hard reading your post that everyone in the office was looking at me.

That makes two of us...

FOR ME WAS NOT FUNNY!!! I was serious on this wich I don't think IBM may release T widescreen on whatever date!!!

I meant if T series line will be a "widescreen" then you will be carrying more weight!!

For those who said that there is not other manufacturer who make 15" laptops well they're wrong the HP for bussiness have for sale and AVAILABLE TOO!!! here is the link"

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm ... 39146.html

kjjb0204 wrote:True, so true. I was thinking he was just dumb, not a FES. I can forgive FES.

I can also KNOW how to forgive people like you!! so don't worry as also I forgot what FES means. so you are fine!! =))

kjjb0204 wrote:Note to creed_mty:

Do your homework please before sounding off about people posting here just to try to sell more product from their websites. BOE Hydis was the glass supplier for all T60P UXGA panels, and they filed bankruptcy last month, causing an immediate halt to production. The Korean based company, a division of BOE based in China, will not be making payments to any components suppliers or dealers. They presented a creditor restructing and repayment plan in August, and was quickly rejected, leading to the bankruptcy filing.

Regarding supply of the displays, there are enough units for warranty/thinkplus protection coverage. They are also looking at possibly using the remaining supply of displays for the end of production T43P to complete several corporate roll outs.

What the hell does "more heavier" mean? Maybe you'll understand what I'm saying if I say it like this:

NO MORE ALL GONE GLASS SUPLY MEANS NO ANY MORE DISPLAIS FOR THE THE T60P UXGA LENNOVA DOESN'T HAVE SO THEY CAN'T MAKE SO IF THEY CAN'T MAKE YOU CAN'T BUY AND IF YOU CAN'T BUY THEN YOU HAVE TO BUY SOMETHING OTHER ELSE THEN LENOVO CAN'T MAKE SINCE YOU WON'T BUY CAUSE THEY CAN'T MAKE NO MORE ANY MORE!!! DUE U UNDERSTAND?

LOOK I don't need no homework at first!!!

The Hell what I meant is that you will carry more weight with a widescreen.

I don't care whose been in bankruptcy that company still in bussiness with new releases of 15" screens
here is the link : http://www.boehydis.com/eng/index.htm click at bottom right under Press Release title and you will see!

is very simple, I never made any confirmation at my POSSIBLE 4 points!!
but one of them could be possible don't YOU know how to distinguish between a thought and a confirmation???

and why you blame me only about the resellers?? you seemed like how do I know it could be that?? or I'm right??? Don't you think?? or How about everybody on this forum think???

If you reply me on this quote good or bad I DO NOT CARE! (fully grammar) so you will understand!

Again, These are some of the several causes of this issue!!

I"m a foreigner So, excuse me for my grammar I did not know that you require perfect English due to only I took 2 yrs in High School Not 4 yrs , already graduated for SURE and I could not take American English level for the reason of time that was very short obviously!!

archer6 wrote:

nonny wrote:C'mon guys - not every forum member speaks or write English fluently. Don't make fun.

Point well taken...

YOU BETTER! THANK YOU!

I phoned Lenovo today and the CSA wouldn't guarantee I'd get my 15" T60P. He did offer to to give me the new widescreen version, but couldn't confirm the resolution or whether if was flexview. He did say Lenovo were launching the new model in a couple of weeks.

I can't wait! I hope its 1920x1200 and flexview!

From what I heard their supplier went out of business and that is why there are very few around and they are very expensive. aweful short sided planning on their part to have only 1 vendor for such an important item. heard this from a vendor who heard it from a lenovo liason with their company. sounds pretty official to me.

maximus_ wrote:I can't wait! I hope its 1920x1200 and flexview!

Me too! I was contemplating getting a Z61p because it has 1920x1200 but if the next T-series machine will have that resolution, that would be the much better choice!

johnp126 wrote:From what I heard their supplier went out of business and that is why there are very few around and they are very expensive. aweful short sided planning on their part to have only 1 vendor for such an important item. heard this from a vendor who heard it from a lenovo liason with their company. sounds pretty official to me.

Looks like that makes my T60P UXGA Flexview a Limited Collectors Edition!

I agree it is somewhat short sighted but I'm glad Lenovo did what they did. It takes an innovative company to take the risk and include a part that they feel is superior even though supply may be tough. Too bad consumers don't really understand IPS otherwise I think demand would be higher and there would naturally be a better supply and better prices. But with the way things look, price seems most critical and widescreen glossy dominates. Hopefully, non-wide, non-glossy screens don't dissappear in 5 years.

I just want to be sure of something, since there are varying definitions on the web. By WSXGA, do you mean 1680x1050 or 1440x900? I'm hoping for the former. I just recently placed an order, and would cancel and wait if it meant I could have 1680x1050 instead of 1400x1050. In addition, reordering would net a Windows Vista upgrade coupon as well.
Thanks for the info (especially kjjb0204!).

I forgot to ask in my last post whether that new T-series with a WSXGA screen, which supposedly will be released November 28, will be a 14" or a 15" model. Thanks in advance for your response.

Well, this really, really, really sucks. I was actually thinking about upgrading from my T42p KXU to a T60p w/ UXGA sometime in the upcoming months. Coming from a 14" 770 1AU (!!), I have really enjoyed the 15" T form factor, which I find to be amazingly thin and light relative to what you get with it. (I'm sure that if you are used to the 14" T, the 15" might seem like a beast, but the 770 was, what, close to 2" thick? )

I love UXGA at 15", and I don't want a widescreen laptop. I was waiting for Core 2 Duo FlexView UXGA models to be released, but it looks like it will not happen.

What I want to know is, okay, so Hydis can't/won't make the panels anymore and is also in bankruptcy. What happened to IDTech, though?? IDTech was who IBM (exclusively) sourced the FlexView panels from for the 15" T4x series, and they're still around, aren't they?

-- Nathan

What I don't get is why they can't make 14" UXGA available. Heck, I'd take a 12" UXGA if I could.

UXGA resolution is 1600x1200. You can't fit 1600 lines into a standard ratio 14. Can have a wide 14 with 1600 lines, but not on a 4:3.

kjjb0204 wrote:UXGA resolution is 1600x1200. You can't fit 1600 lines into a standard ratio 14. Can have a wide 14 with 1600 lines, but not on a 4:3.

Uhm, and why the heck not?

Because you don't think LCD manufacturing has been able to produce displays with a PPI of greater than 133 + 1/3rd?

What about those amazing QXGA 15" LCD panels? That's 170.66 PPI!! And the IBM Roentgen 200 PPI displays exist, as well. Squeezing UXGA into a 14" 4:3 format would be a mere ~143 PPI.

Should be extremely doable. Maybe slightly more expensive, but doable.

-- Nathan

NathanA wrote:What about those amazing QXGA 15" LCD panels? That's 170.66 PPI!!

Also don't forget the Toshiba Libretto's 1280x768 squeezed into a 7.2" display.

Ok, even if you can, would it really be practical? I know it's a personal preference thing, but the type would be so small on a 1600 14" that I can't imagine anyone that would prefer that.

kjjb0204 wrote:Ok, even if you can, would it really be practical? I know it's a personal preference thing, but the type would be so small on a 1600 14" that I can't imagine anyone that would prefer that.

*I* would prefer it (for one) in a heartbeat. You cannot have too high of a resolution/PPI/DPI.

This line of argumentation floors me everytime it is put forth. I ranted on this very topic some time ago, and although some (like Kenn) took issue with my argumentation (even though I wasn't the only one in the thread arguing it! my post was triggered by someone else making essentially the same claims), even he ended up calling it "prophetic."

So, I am going to re-argue the same point again (slightly extended from before), for the record.

aludal wrote:Now this returns me to the theme: a future notebook with average 15-16" 3000x2000x32bpp screen will make AA/ClearType/hinting obsolete (kerning wars will start between major foundries though.) Naturally, there will be no "problem" of font size, as it's actually no such problem at all.

EXACTLY! At least someone got it right! Thank you for pointing this out. It kills me to read posts by people who are worried that a certain resolution will make things "too small" to read or view comfortably. The trick is that everybody seems to think that the sole point of higher resolutions is to get more screen real-estate. No, the point of higher resolutions is to have a HIGHER RESOLUTION! If you scale up the fonts and icons on your 15" 1600x1200 display so that they are physically the exact same size as they would be on a 15" 1024x768 display with the font and icon sizes set at their normal/default values, the fact is that *your eyes will thank you for getting the higher resolution display*. Do these same people complain when printer technology advances and makes text and photo output crisper and cleaner? That's done by raising the DPI! Increasing pixel or dot density does not logically imply that everything gets smaller! Would you rather that the text that comes out of your printer look blocky?

Now, naturally, although there is no such thing as a "font" problem since vector-based fonts can scale up to fit your resolution and still remain sharp-looking, the argument could be made that higher-resolution displays pose a problem for bitmap graphics (photographs, etc.) The only solution for that problem is to change over to using largely vector-based images as well (even/especially on the web, where GIF and JPG dominate), and for those types of images that cannot be vectorized (like digital photographs), I guess that digital cameras will just have to make leaps in their "megapixel" growth parallel with improvements that happen with display technology.

There are already graphical environments that exist on the market which do what I'm talking about and can cleanly "scale up" to higher-density display technologies without causing things to look like crap (MacOS X and its PDF-based live GUI rendering engine for one), and more are on their way to a PC near you (Windows Vista). But, heck, even Windows XP, for all the flack it gets on this subject, really is not all that bad. On my own UXGA display, I don't touch the DPI setting ('cause of what that does to all of the icons when it tries to "scale" those bitmaps), but I do increase the size of the system fonts manually (tweaking the Windows Standard w/ Large Fonts color scheme), and after doing that coupled with turning ClearType on, font size is no longer a problem, "as it's actually no such problem at all."

Thus endeth my rant...

-- Nathan

This should endeth your rant: straight from NEC's website:

Since LCD monitors are fixed-matrix displays (meaning that they have an exact number of dots or pixels on a screen), they are best used at their native resolution. At their native resolution, LCDs are displaying the exact number of pixels to the exact location where they were intended. This allows for a crystal-clear picture without the need to "focus" a beam of light properly with each adjustment as is the case with a CRT monitor. Therefore, for LCD monitors, the native resolution is the recommended resolution where the image is optimized. LCD monitors are capable of displaying lower resolutions by using complex mathematical algorithms and doubling and dividing the pixels in different ways. This method, however, can lead to artifacts such as chunky-looking fonts. For this reason, if the intent of switching resolutions is simply to increase the font or icon size, it is recommended that these options be changed in the operating system or via third-party software such as LiquidView.

Since they are not fixed matrix displays, CRTs have the capability of adjusting the size of the spot or pixel, making them larger or smaller as needed to display a particular resolution. Because of this, CRTs have the potential of achieving crisp-looking images at all supported resolutions. Good image quality can be achieved through a good quality electron gun that can deliver good focus and convergence characteristics.

kjjb0204 wrote:This should endeth your rant: straight from NEC's website:

Uhh, no, it does not.

This quote that you provided is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

NEC is correct: LCDs should be used at their native resolution. If you try to run a UXGA LCD at XGA resolution, it will look like teh suck. This is because there are a fixed number of pixels positioned physically at fixed locations on the panel, so when you try to display an image on an LCD that uses a resolution size lower than what it was natively designed to display, you have to either resort to pixel doubling (uuuuuugly), or resort to centering the smaller image in the middle of the display and let the pixels around the image go unused (black frame/borders). This is all unlike a CRT where the "pixels" can be "resized" to be larger or smaller.

When I talk about "scaling," I'm not talking about running a lower-than-native resolution on an LCD panel in order to increase the size of everything. Blech. I'm talking about running the panel at native resolution and then vectorizing everything so that there IS no pixelation that occurs in order to make the objects and fonts that are displayed to be the size you want them to be.

If you don't understand the terms or the difference between the terms "bitmap" and "vector," then I'm afraid that this discussion between us will not be very productive. TrueType fonts are inherently vectorized. Here is where you can read up on the subject.

-- Nathan

NathanA wrote:

kjjb0204 wrote:This should endeth your rant: straight from NEC's website:

Uhh, no, it does not.

This quote that you provided is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

NEC is correct: LCDs should be used at their native resolution. If you try to run a UXGA LCD at XGA resolution, it will look like teh suck. This is because there are a fixed number of pixels positioned physically at fixed locations on the panel, so when you try to display an image on an LCD that uses a resolution size lower than what it was natively designed to display, you have to either resort to pixel doubling (uuuuuugly), or resort to centering the smaller image in the middle of the display and let the pixels around the image go unused (black frame/borders). This is all unlike a CRT where the "pixels" can be "resized" to be larger or smaller.

When I talk about "scaling," I'm not talking about running a lower-than-native resolution on an LCD panel in order to increase the size of everything. Blech. I'm talking about running the panel at native resolution and then vectorizing everything so that there IS no pixelation that occurs in order to make the objects and fonts that are displayed to be the size you want them to be.

If you don't understand the terms or the difference between the terms "bitmap" and "vector," then I'm afraid that this discussion between us will not be very productive. TrueType fonts are inherently vectorized. Here is where you can read up on the subject.

-- Nathan

I totally agree with you on this one and can't see why it starts arguments.

No one said anything about changing the resolution to anything but the native, of course that looks horrible. What he is talking about is changing the size of the text and objects on the screen. When you change the font sizes in Word does it get blurry? When you change the size of an IE window or the text in it does it get blurry? Sure doesn't...

I agree with Nathan, but what native resolution and that link from NEC has to do with anything I have no idea.

"Endeths" to Rants generally makes things far worse than they should be.

So what you're saying is that on a UXGA, you can leave it set to 1600x1200, but increase the size of everything on the screen so it's not unbearably small? How is that done? My 17" lcd at work has super small everything, and I can't read it half the time without sitting closer or squinting. Some guy in my hardware tech support team said I can just decrease the resolution, but then everything looks crappy.

kjjb0204 wrote:So what you're saying is that on a UXGA, you can leave it set to 1600x1200, but increase the size of everything on the screen so it's not unbearably small? How is that done? My 17" lcd at work has super small everything, and I can't read it half the time without sitting closer or squinting. Some guy in my hardware tech support team said I can just decrease the resolution, but then everything looks crappy.

Right click on your desktop
Select "Properties"
"Appearance" tab
Then set the Font Size to "Large Font"

At least that will makes things easier to read. You might want to increase the font size used by browser as well.

kjjb0204 wrote:So what you're saying is that on a UXGA, you can leave it set to 1600x1200, but increase the size of everything on the screen so it's not unbearably small?

That is exactly what I am saying.

How is that done?

This is where it gets a little tricky, only because of the limitations of the way that the Windows 98/2000/XP GUI works.

A lot (and I mean a lot) of Windows GUI elements are bitmapped or raster images. Thus, when you tell Windows that you have a higher DPI display device, it will scale the fonts up properly (which look just fine because fonts are vector-rendered; they won't be all ugly and blocky-looking), but some icons will look pretty nasty because Windows just pixel-doubles that stuff (it has no other choice!)

Windows Vista is supposed to change all of that. The new Aero GUI that is a part of Vista is supposed to allow you to scale up the elements on display without them getting all yucky-pixel-doubled. So for a true fix for this problem of high-DPI displays, we need to wait for the software people to catch up and lessen their depenence on bitmaps in their graphical interfaces. Upgrade to Vista when it comes out, or switch to something else that allows for true resolution-independence (my understanding is that MacOS X does already and has since day 1).

Now, with all that having been said, here is how I tackled the problem on Windows XP on my UXGA display:

I would advise you not to change your display settings to "Large Fonts (120 DPI)" on your display properties (Control Panel -> Display -> Settings -> Advanced -> DPI Setting). Fonts look fine when you do this, but as I stated before, all the raster graphics will look like puke. There is a way to increase the font size, though, and some of the icons without having Windows try to scale things up that can't be scaled.

1. Under Display Properties (Control Panel -> Display, or right-click Desktop -> Properties), go to Appearance.
2. Set "Font size" to Large.
3. You may have to optionally adjust some of the font sizes after this by clicking on Advanced and tweaking with things (I didn't like the default proportions of the Large size setting, so I messed with things a bit myself).
4. Go to Effects on the Appearance tab.
5. Check "Use large icons." (This will tell Windows to use 48x48 size icons when possible instead of 32x32.)
6. Apply all of those changes.
7. In your word processor, web browser, etc., you will probably need to increase the size of the fonts (or document) being displayed independent of the Windows settings you have already manipulated.
8. Optionally, I would recommend you enable ClearType (Display properties -> Appearance -> Effects -> "Use the following method to smooth edges of screen fonts" -> "ClearType"). On high-res LCDs, this effect is absolutely beautiful, IMO.

It takes a little bit of work to get things to the point that you want them to be at, but in my opinion, the time spent is well worth the end result.

My understanding is that most of this setup and tweaking of the OS and then of individual applications, however, will soon become a thing of the past with Vista. With Vista, you should just be able to change one system setting (screen DPI, the setting I recommended AGAINST you using in Windows XP as it is currently implemented), and everything will be taken care of. Tweaking for high-res displays should be a thing of the past (and if it is NOT and Microsoft poorly implements this, Vista will need to be taken out and shot... ). There may still be some legacy Windows apps that continue to use bitmap elements in their own GUI, but time will take care of that as well.

-- Nathan

kjjb0204 wrote:This should endeth your rant: straight from NEC's website:

Since LCD monitors are fixed-matrix displays (meaning that they have an exact number of dots or pixels on a screen), they are best used at their native resolution. At their native resolution, LCDs are displaying the exact number of pixels to the exact location where they were intended. This allows for a crystal-clear picture without the need to "focus" a beam of light properly with each adjustment as is the case with a CRT monitor. Therefore, for LCD monitors, the native resolution is the recommended resolution where the image is optimized. LCD monitors are capable of displaying lower resolutions by using complex mathematical algorithms and doubling and dividing the pixels in different ways. This method, however, can lead to artifacts such as chunky-looking fonts. For this reason, if the intent of switching resolutions is simply to increase the font or icon size, it is recommended that these options be changed in the operating system or via third-party software such as LiquidView.

Since they are not fixed matrix displays, CRTs have the capability of adjusting the size of the spot or pixel, making them larger or smaller as needed to display a particular resolution. Because of this, CRTs have the potential of achieving crisp-looking images at all supported resolutions. Good image quality can be achieved through a good quality electron gun that can deliver good focus and convergence characteristics.

Folks, may I suggest you just don't quote out from the context and have endless threads about nonsense. You should rather study the technology about CRTs and LCDs.
Both are a matrix and both have to resize their fonts. If you resize LCD or CRT fonts you are doing exactly the same. The only difference is the resolution of the CRT electron absorbing mask and the LCD subpixel matrix.
Same, same but different. You get a blurry picture on both. The only difference is the pixel size which is larger on the LCD.

Get a book and study CRTs and LCDs before having a long, useless discussion.

And BTW: there is nothing wrong with abandoning IPS displays. Their technology is not up-to-date anymore. They are heavy, suck a lot of energy and are quite expensive to manufacture, with low production yields.

BOEHydis was left out in the market due to their higher-end market niche. They just can not stay profitable in sinking margins. Even Philipps is struggling with its LCD fabs and Sony has already bit the grass.

There are cheaper, lighter and better alternatives to IPS.
Anyway, I did not like IPS high-frequency flashing, when it is recharging its transistor lines. Most people probably won't notice but some are sensitive.

Even BOE has shifted away from IPS and developed newer, better Fringe displays.

beeblebrox wrote:Folks, may I suggest you just don't quote out from the context and have endless threads about nonsense.

LOL! Thanks for that.

[snip]

beeblebrox wrote:And BTW: there is nothing wrong with abandoning IPS displays. Their technology is not up-to-date anymore.

Unfortunately, while your technological observations might be spot-on here, I think we are wandering away from the point of this discussion, which was not the disputed superiority of IPS, but rather the lack of high-DPI display options since the highest DPI display in the ThinkPad line-up was an IPS LCD. Now that those panels are no longer an option when ordering, no other display based on any other LCD technology has stepped in to fill those shoes. You cannot get a 133.33 DPI ThinkPad anymore, IPS or non-IPS. For those of us to whom DPI is "king" (me!), this means we're effectively screwed. After having had the pleasure of using a high-DPI display for nearly the past 2 years, I'm not going to "upgrade" to a lower-resolution panel. I *would* *buy* a non-IPS panel if the DPI was high enough...the IPS or lack of is not a deal-breaker for me, but the DPI of the panel *is*. I'll stick with my T42p for a little longer than initially planned, thank you very much.

When I made this point and others chimed in to express their desire to see even higher DPI displays as options in ThinkPads, then this "argument" that you walked into started about whether or not higher DPI is a good thing, to which I answered: "always." (At least as long as current software is prepared to take advantage of the extra resolution. Otherwise you get people who arrive at the conclusion, after using a high-res display, that more resolution is bad because everything is "tiny" and attempts to make it otherwise look like crap. Never mind that that's a software issue, though I will admit that this turns it into a practical issue.)

Besides (speaking of practical issues!), concerning IPS and how much it sucks or doesn't suck as an LCD technology in this day, you have sadly overlooked the practical implications of the lack of IPS offerings on ThinkPads, which is that despite the fact that there may be better and more "up-to-date" LCD technologies in existence today, the unfortunate truth of the matter is that they are unlikely to filter down to our favorite laptop brand anytime soon, meaning that without IPS options, your only other available choice on a ThinkPad now consists of twisted nematic displays. This (cheaper) alternative to IPS may have been able to make great strides in pixel response time in recent years, but it still doesn't match or exceed IPS (or IPS's "successors" which we have yet to see manifest themselves in actual ThinkPad product) for its wide viewing angles or more accurate color rendition.

beeblebrox wrote:BOEHydis was left out in the market due to their higher-end market niche.

Okay, that's a plausible explanation, if the market is going the way you claim. What about IDTech? I asked about them earlier in this thread and have not received any bites.

beeblebrox wrote:There are cheaper, lighter and better alternatives to IPS.

Call me when I can order one on a T-series and it has > 130PPI.

beeblebrox wrote:Anyway, I did not like IPS high-frequency flashing, when it is recharging its transistor lines. Most people probably won't notice but some are sensitive.

Hmm. I'm curious to know what this means and what I would be looking for. I haven't noticed anything about this IPS screen that is more annoying to me than TN displays I've used in the past (except for the weird dark-ish shadow on the right side, which I've learned to cope with). How does this problem manifest itself, and how do you detect it?

-- Nathan