T61 / 14" WS

Message

Champ · #31 Post by **Champ** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:28 pm

Do the WS screens at least have more surface area?

#32 Post by **tomh009** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:17 am

No. For any given diagonal measurement, a square has the most surface area, and 4:3 is closer to a square than 8:5 is. So for a 14.1" display, the conventional 4:3 is 95.4 sq in, while 8:5 is 89.4 sq in.

That said, the widescreens often have higher dpi (pixel density) than the conventional screens.

3nigma · #33 Post by **3nigma** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:12 pm

tomh009 wrote:No. For any given diagonal measurement, a square has the most surface area, and 4:3 is closer to a square than 8:5 is. So for a 14.1" display, the conventional 4:3 is 97 sq in, while 8:5 is 95.2 sq in.

That said, the widescreens often have higher dpi (pixel density) than the conventional screens.

And as a result of the higher pixel density, have better resolution and therefore: more screen space (more data visible on the same space).

Widescreen TVs are 16:9 aspect ratio. For computers they have changed it to 16:10, because at this ratio setting, you can have two open windows side-by-side for perfect viewing. Makes for a fantastic setup.

-3nigma

#34 Post by **ZaZ** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:46 pm

Any one know if the R series is going wide as well.

#35 Post by **tomh009** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:04 pm

3nigma wrote:And as a result of the higher pixel density, have better resolution and therefore: more screen space (more data visible on the same space).

The pixel density is no automatic thing, though, and is in no way tied to the screen aspect ratio. As an example, most conventional 20" desktop LCD monitors have a 1600x1200 resolution, whereas 20" widescreen LCD monitors typically have 1680x1050 resolution. That's 8.1% fewer pixels on 6.4% less surface area, with a reduction from 100 dpi to 99 dpi.

I don't believe in the generalizations that a wide-screen is "always" better than a 4:3 one, or "always" worse. It all depends on your specific requirements -- and the manufacturer's specific implementation.

Dead1nside · #36 Post by **Dead1nside** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:08 pm

I'm just not too keen on there being large regions of space around the keyboard, I like how it fits pretty neatly and compactly into my T41p. I have quite a bit of flex in places anyway, I wouldn't want more potentially.

ptantra · #37 Post by **ptantra** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:53 pm

[quote="3nigma"]Widescreen TVs are 16:9 aspect ratio. For computers they have changed it to 16:10, because at this ratio setting, you can have two open windows side-by-side for perfect viewing. Makes for a fantastic setup.

-3nigma[/quote]

Now if they can only make it so when I hit a button, the window automatically resizes to half my screen instead of the whole screen. I bought an external WS monitor recently and found myself spending [u]way[/u] too much time resizing and positioning windows so I could review two docs at once. I promptly gave that WS monitor to my GF to replace her CRT and bought myself two 4:3 monitors to replace my CRT.

I'd love it if someone shipped code that would add two additional buttons to all window tile bars: "1/2 max left" and "1/2 max right" (automatically resize window to take up an entire side of the screen) in addition to the "minimize," "maximize" and "close" buttons. That would aid my adoption of a WS.

seeplus · #38 Post by **seeplus** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:42 pm

ptantra,

That's a good idea.
This: http://www.actualtools.com/windowguard/ might help.

That util aside, I think most applications save their window states; you should be able to set them once and not worry about it. Of course, once you use your Thinkpad without the external monitor, all saved positions require re-adjustment..

Champ · #39 Post by **Champ** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:52 am

what about 15.4 ws to 15.0 flexview. Does the extra .4 compensate for more surface area?

pianowizard · #40 Post by **pianowizard** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:01 am

Champ wrote:what about 15.4 ws to 15.0 flexview. Does the extra .4 compensate for more surface area?

A 15.0" 4:3 screen still has a slightly larger surface area than a 15.4" screen. I calculated the exact dimensions a while ago but can't find that post; I think it's something like 6% more.

TO THE MODERATORS: Many people have asked these questions about screen sizes, aspect ratios and resolutions, and I feel that a sticky thread explaining these issues would be very helpful to these people. If the moderators think this is a good idea, I can contribute to such a thread.

tomh009 wrote:I don't believe in the generalizations that a wide-screen is "always" better than a 4:3 one, or "always" worse.

If you are just talking about the number of pixels, I agree. However, a widescreen is always better than 4:3 in one way, regardless of resolution: watching widescreen movies. For example, I would rather watch widescreen DVDs on a 14" WXGA screen than a 15" UXGA screen, even though the latter has a lot more pixels.

dr_st · #41 Post by **dr_st** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:20 am

pianowizard wrote:However, a widescreen is always better than 4:3 in one way, regardless of resolution: watching widescreen movies. For example, I would rather watch widescreen DVDs on a 14" WXGA screen than a 15" UXGA screen, even though the latter has a lot more pixels.

Yes, and 4:3 is always better than widescreen when watching full-screen videos (TV shows, etc).

3nigma · #42 Post by **3nigma** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:19 am

ptantra wrote:Now if they can only make it so when I hit a button, the window automatically resizes to half my screen instead of the whole screen.

Mac OS X has that feature built-in, stock ;-D.

onix · #43 Post by **onix** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:42 pm

tomh009 wrote:No. For any given diagonal measurement, a square has the most surface area, and 4:3 is closer to a square than 8:5 is. So for a 14.1" display, the conventional 4:3 is 95.4 sq in, while 8:5 is 89.4 sq in.

That said, the widescreens often have higher dpi (pixel density) than the conventional screens.

What exactly is the pixel density difference between the T-series 14.1" SXGA+ and the new widescreens?? Is there a link? Is it like the Z-series widescreen 14"?

Edit: OK, I retract my question. I see that the WSXGA+ has a 1680 x 1050 resolution which is a higher number of pixels over a smaller area. My next question is, will the new widescreen been smaller in volume and/or lighter in weight?

Cheung · #44 Post by **Cheung** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:11 pm

First time poster, so please bear with me...

I've been trying to decide whether to take the plunge on a 4:3 14.1" SXGA+ screen or wait until the rumoured 14" WS WSXGA+ screen shows up in a couple of months...

While many people seems to have confirmation from Lenovo about the 14" WS having WSXGA+ resoulution (1680x1050), I wonder about the accuracy of that info (directed at the Lenovo reps, not the posters!) My understanding on the various resolutions is as follows:

WSXGA+ = 1680x1050
WXGA+ = 1440x900

After some research on the net, I couldn't find any other laptop supplier that sells a 14" WS with WSXGA+ resolution. The highest res. for a 14" WS that I have seen is at WXGA+. If the new T6x 14"WS has only 1440x900, then I would much rather have a 4:3 SXGA+ (1400x1050) screen. It'll have higher res. and possibly lower weight than the 14" WS...

Does anyone know when Lenovo will officially announce their T6x models? Is it going to be before or after the Santa Rosa announcement is made?

Thank you all!
[/quote]

pianowizard · #45 Post by **pianowizard** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:23 pm

Cheung wrote:After some research on the net, I couldn't find any other laptop supplier that sells a 14" WS with WSXGA+ resolution.

I am not aware of any 14" or 14.1" SWXGA+ laptops either (see this fairly complete list), so the widescreen T61 would be the first such laptop. Lenovo might need to make their own LCD.

Cheung wrote:If the new T6x 14"WS has only 1440x900, then I would much rather have a 4:3 SXGA+ (1400x1050) screen. It'll have higher res. and possibly lower weight than the 14" WS...

Me too. However, a 14.1" widescreen would probably be lighter than a 14.1" 4:3 model because the physical area of a 14.1" widescreen is actually smaller.

3nigma · #46 Post by **3nigma** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:27 pm

The sales rep that I spoke with Mohammad was able to tell me WSXGA+, but I'm not sure if he knows for sure.

Sales rep Chris and rep Tyrone both were most unhelpful in answering my probing questions, hehe.

I would definitely be bummed without WSXGA+. I may just get a MacBookPro if this T61p 14" widescreen isn't a dream machine.

-3nigma

Torque · #47 Post by **Torque** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:42 pm

Is there any official confirmation of this? and especially the phase-out of the 4:3 screen within Lenovo?

I'm just about to get a T60, and will propably be getting the 14,1" 1400x1050 screen that I've had on my previous Thinkpads since I love that screen.

However, rumors of Santa Rosa coming up just now are making me think about waiting - but how big will the gain in performance actually by? And if Lenovo discontinues the 4:3 screens in the process, I'll definitely prefer a 4:3 1,83 CD to a Santa Rosa.

sugo · #48 Post by **sugo** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:17 pm

I would wait. Even if Santa Rosa turns out to repeat Sonoma's tragedy (more heat, higher power consumption with little performance gain), you can buy a T60 for cheap as it will be on a deep price cut by then.

Torque · #49 Post by **Torque** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:18 pm

sugo wrote:I would wait. Even if Santa Rosa turns out to repeat Sonoma's tragedy (more heat, higher power consumption with little performance gain), you can buy a T60 for cheap as it will be on a deep price cut by then.

Any official news on when we will see Santa Rosa?

#50 Post by **tomh009** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:41 pm

Nothing official so far.

jjesusfreak01 · #51 Post by **jjesusfreak01** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:10 pm

3nigma wrote: Here are the specs for my DREAM MACHINE. If it has these specs, I will buy one in a HEARTBEAT.

- 14" Widescreen
- Vibrant-Color Screen (as opposed to matte screen)
- Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz Processor
- ATI 512MB graphics card (256 would still be okay)
- 2-4GB RAM (if 4GB becomes affordable, 2GB is okay)
- 100+GB 7200 RPM HDD (I use a networked 500GB MyBook for storage, not a big concern there)
- WebConferencing Video Cam Embedded
- Backlit keyboard

You got the wide, vibrant screen, core 2 duo with at least a 2.0 Ghz processor. ATI card will likely be 256mb in the non-p version, but its hypermemory, or whatever ATI calls it, so it reports 512MB to the OS. Works fine for me, and if they come out with a DX10 card in the thinkpads, even better. You probably dont want more than 2GB of ram. The motherboard cant access 4GB, so you are limited at 3. The high end new models will probably have 120+ HDDs, no worry there. Seeing as its a widescreen, if they follow the z series trend and include the camera; it would be nice. I dont see a backlit keyboard. Unless they use an enclosed fiber optic system. They like to keep it simple so it has less problems.

And yes, you should get a mac. I didnt quote the rest of your post because it was freaking me out. Why dont you buy a Thinkpad and strip it down, then but a 15in widescreen MBP, and swap the components (insert maniacal laugh here).

Torque · #52 Post by **Torque** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:21 am

3nigma wrote:When this finally comes out, I can FINALLY purchase my Thinkpad!

I have been waiting for a widescreen 14" literally since September 2006, putting off my purchase. It has been KILLING me to wait this long. I have even been going with no laptop, and having to use my wife's iBook!

Here are the specs for my DREAM MACHINE. If it has these specs, I will buy one in a HEARTBEAT.

- 14" Widescreen
- Vibrant-Color Screen (as opposed to matte screen)
- Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz Processor
- ATI 512MB graphics card (256 would still be okay)
- 2-4GB RAM (if 4GB becomes affordable, 2GB is okay)
- 100+GB 7200 RPM HDD (I use a networked 500GB MyBook for storage, not a big concern there)
- WebConferencing Video Cam Embedded
- Backlit keyboard

I can live without the webcam and keyboard, but what I really want is the next-generation of high-end 512MB video cards in laptops now. And to top it off, if it would PLEASE have a GLOSS-SCREEN, I would KILL for it! I will drop a couple grand in a heartbeat for one of these.

Even if it has a matte finish screen, I will do a transplant to give it a gloss screen, like that other person did on these forums. That will give me an opportunity to do my other mod, which is to install a glowing "Apple" logo on the back. It sounds out of character, but I'm installing Mac OS X as my main OS on this thing .

-3nigma

Why not just buy a Macbook Pro? I'm selling mine to get a T60 - 4:3

Modding the Thinkpad to gloss screen and sticking an apple logo on the back.. that's just awfully akward and.. well.. freaky. The glossy thing I can understand, although I will never get a gloss screen if I have the choice - but sticking an apple logo on a different brand of laptop? I simply cannot understand the purpose.

nxman · #53 Post by **nxman** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:38 pm

No glossy screen for me please!

snessiram · #54 Post by **snessiram** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:31 am

3nigma wrote:
ptantra wrote:

As exposé resizes windows temporarly and doesn't allow clicking on buttons etc., can you tell me how you do it so you get 2 windows next to eachother "permanently"?

axiom · #55 Post by **axiom** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:46 am

jjesusfreak01 wrote:.... You probably dont want more than 2GB of ram. The motherboard cant access 4GB, so you are limited at 3. ....

With the 64bit processors, I think the 4GB system memory limit is lifted, so entire 4GB should be addressable.

aviography · #56 Post by **aviography** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:54 am

I believe it's Windows XP that is the limiting factor on greater-than-3GB access.

axiom · #57 Post by **axiom** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:46 am

aviography wrote:I believe it's Windows XP that is the limiting factor on greater-than-3GB access.

If there is a limit put on the OS, it has to be a 32bit OS.

I wonder if 32bit Linux can handle more than 4GB system memory on x86-64

Dead1nside · #58 Post by **Dead1nside** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm

I thought it was because of mapped memory

memory mapped peripherals, for the graphics hypermemory etc.

anthean · #59 Post by **anthean** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:08 pm

perry_78 wrote:No 4:3?

[censored], I can't believe Lenovo would do that. I want my laptop 14" and 4:3...

I have yet to make a definite decision regarding my preference of standard vs widescreen, but find it very upsetting that the choice is being made for me.

I wonder if both HP and Panasonic are also discontinuing 4:3 ?

Dead1nside · #60 Post by **Dead1nside** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:15 pm

HP still have 4: 3 displays on some models, I was looking into it myself. Having recently tried out one of their budget business models, they're very good.

T61 / 14" WS

Re: FINALLY

Re: FINALLY

Re: FINALLY

Who is online