Thinkpads Forum

Another thought, why do we have 16:9 displays "for a better viewing experience", when we all know that standard comes from the consumer space? There are so many irrational things going on that the argument "businesses don't need great screens" just doesn't hold water. Slap a label like "FHD" on it and you can sell it. Decent screens under that heading can be found elsewhere in the Thinkpad range. Sony make some pretty good 13" FHD screens. Does anyone really need the insanely high DPI in that size? Who cares, as long as it's got a label and it sells. Sometimes I wonder if Lenovo's decision to stick with 16:10 wasn't their undoing here. Panel makers perhaps decided those were only ever used for business. Everyone optimised for brightness at the expense of contrast and took it too far.

FragrantHead wrote:Another thought, why do we have 16:9 displays "for a better viewing experience", when we all know that standard comes from the consumer space? There are so many irrational things going on that the argument "businesses don't need great screens" just doesn't hold water.

16:9 panels are cheaper. Businesses want cheap. Seems logical to me.

Aren't the Thinkpad screens 16:10?
Which would be a good thing.

My point was that the 16:9 panels used in the T510 series look to be half decent by what I read. I've then been surmising that maybe that's because, being that format, they are produced with media / home-entertainment laptops in mind, which, like TVs, puts a premium on contrast specs. Therefore, since basically all the 16:10 displays available today have really bad contrast, due to some stupid assumption by LCD manufacturers that those specs are unimportant for business laptops, it might be wiser to buy a 16:9-based laptop. Like you I prefer 16:10, or 4:3 for that matter, but had I known how bad my T410s display is, I would have considered a 16:9 display instead if that gets me better panel quality.

Personally, I plain just wouldn't buy a 16:9. 16:10 is on the edge of useful, 16:9 is too far gone for me.

As far as people saying it's just about cost-cutting etc, let me just say that even if you shell out for the expensive AFFS screens that do exist, you can be like me, and end up with a stuck green pixel, and honestly I'd give up 10% of the contrast to get rid of the stuck pixel that popped up on my uxga flexview after a few days of use...

there is a report of IPS LCD based dual-screen tablet from Kno: http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/02/kno- ... -hands-on/

may be someone can figure out a way install the same LCD in a 14" thinkpad.

I've got a Thinkpad T410s and, if you compare it's screen to the decent screen of, say, a Macbook (>1:500 measured contrast), you're not loosing 10% of contrast, you're loosing 80% (<1:100 measured contrast for T410s)! We're not arguing about something subtle here. Stuck pixels can be unsubtle, but so is this!

Does anyone know the make and model of the IPS panel in the Kno tablet?

FragrantHead wrote:I've got a Thinkpad T410s and, if you compare it's screen to the decent screen of, say, a Macbook (>1:500 measured contrast), you're not loosing 10% of contrast, you're loosing 80% (<1:100 measured contrast for T410s)! We're not arguing about something subtle here. Stuck pixels can be unsubtle, but so is this!

I don't care how pretty the display is on a Macbook, it's glossy. I want to be able to see my screen in normal room lighting or when I have a window behind me. I'll take the ThinkPad matte screen over any glossy one. But I suppose if I were a video or photo editor or graphic designer who sits in a mostly dark room all the time, then I probably would want a Macbook.

raydabruce wrote: I don't care how pretty the display is on a Macbook, it's glossy.

Depends on which Macbook model we're talking about. My 2010 Macbook Pro has a 1680 × 1050 HD matte screen.
See the picture and the model on the right - http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/G/181420 ... nbox07.jpg

Harryc wrote:Depends on which Macbook model we're talking about. My 2010 Macbook Pro has a 1680 × 1050 HD matte screen.

Aha! -- good to know. They must be rare, never seen one out here in the wild. I spend a lot of time in coffee shops and see a lot of Macbooks around but they all (the ones I've seen) have glossy screens and their owners are trying to get in a corner somewhere away from the windows so they can actually see their screens. They see my screen and start asking questions about my ThinkPad. If they can type with all their fingers I encourage them to try the keyboard. They are always impressed with that. (I could never get used to an "island", flat-topped, "chiclet" style keyboard, but then, I'm getting old and don't have the patience to.)

FWIW I completely agree about the Macbook keyboard, which I hated while using one, and the glossy screens. Having bought the touch-screen T410s I'm not even happy with that, since the touch-screen overlay makes the screen semi-glossy. It was available at the same price as the standard screen here for a while. Unless you absolutely need touch, I would recommend the lighter and presumably more matte standard screen.

FragrantHead wrote:FWIW I completely agree about the Macbook keyboard, which I hated while using one, and the glossy screens. Having bought the touch-screen T410s I'm not even happy with that, since the touch-screen overlay makes the screen semi-glossy. It was available at the same price as the standard screen here for a while. Unless you absolutely need touch, I would recommend the lighter and presumably more matte standard screen.

Macbook chiclet keyboard isn't that bad, though not great. It is said to be better than most chiclet styled keyboards.

It is possible to swap out glossy display in macbooks through a non-apple company. 15" or larger macbooks can get higher resolution non-glossy LCD as a CTO option for $150. (Why can't we have the similar option for IPS or AFFS LCDs in thinkpads?)

Got my DisplayPort adapter today. Wow, looks great on an external monitor. Wish I could fold up and carry the 22" external around with me.

I also work a lot in photoshop. The screen on my t400 was so bad that I eventually sold and went back to my old trusted t60p.

sanjuro wrote:Macbook chiclet keyboard isn't that bad, though not great.

Probably true in the overall scheme of things.

sanjuro wrote:It is said to be better than most chiclet styled keyboards.

Wait! You haven't actually used one? First hand experience talking here, you know!

FWIW I just tried the Macbook of my neighboor; it's a slightly later Macbook Pro, but still Core 2, 13" model and the keyboard is noticeably better, with a slightly lighter action and a slight, perceived increase in travel. Probably the same kind of variation you get in Thinkpad keyboards, but still no comparison to those.

For 20+ years I used desktop keyboards exclusively (I do a lot of typing). The ThinkPad keyboard is the only laptop keyboard I've found that approximates a good desktop keyboard. It is one of the main reasons I always go back to ThinkPads after trying some other brand.

FragrantHead wrote:Probably true in the overall scheme of things.

Wait! You haven't actually used one? First hand experience talking here, you know!

FWIW I just tried the Macbook of my neighboor; it's a slightly later Macbook Pro, but still Core 2, 13" model and the keyboard is noticeably better, with a slightly lighter action and a slight, perceived increase in travel. Probably the same kind of variation you get in Thinkpad keyboards, but still no comparison to those.

To further clarify, I've used both macbooks and thinkpads and I personally like the key board action on the thinkpads better.

I haven't tried too many non-thinkpad chicle keyboards. Of the ones I tried, the chiclet keyboard on macbooks is better than those found in pc notebooks. Key board action on those pc notebooks are pretty crappy. They generally feel like a sponge with no tactile feedback.

fuzzybabybunny wrote:Contrast is absolutely horrible. Color saturation is very weak.

No wonder, according the Notebookcheck review the real world contrast ratio is 126:1 But saving few $ by providing ultra-crappy (tm) panel makes Lenovo managers happy, you know ...

The tabook.pdf file specifies display contrast ratio 250:1 for X201 WXGA models. Since the real value is almost 50% worse it might be subject to repair.

Even "cheap" Asus Eee PC 1201T model delivers panel with more than real 700:1 contrast ratio (yes, it is glossy, but Lenovo uses these "no-contrast" glossy panels in S series as well). The glossy finish does not have any significant impact on contrast ratio, it is the quality of the panel itself (read: cost). Lenovo glossy S12 panel has 183:1, Asus glossy panel has over 700:1. Why ? The answer is pretty easy.

BTW The Asus has 12" 1366x768 panel, any chance of X201 (WXGA) display mod ? The X201 would be nice machine, especially since comes with 4 GB RAM and WWAN but the funny "display" is a deal breaker.

The x201 screen is not that bad. In fact, I have both the T60p with the IPS screen and the x201. To my eyes, I find the x201 screen pretty tolerable, perfectly usable. If you are really nit picky about the screen, you can always buy the ultrabase and attach an external IPS screen.

An external screen defeats the X201's greatest asset, portability. The AFFS mod remains an option if you want a really good screen. I'd agree that I didn't think my X200's screen was all that bad at least compared to what else is being offered out there, but for $125 more, I'd take the AFFS.

Fred: I'm going to assume your signature is a joke.

Having owned several "netbooks" there is simply no comparison to my X201 other than portability. It's way, way ahead of any true netbook in terms of power and versatility.

As for the screen, I find it to be just fine after tweaking the color settings a bit in the Intel HD Control Program.

Ray, you went back to the intel program rather than the profile I sent?

marlinspike wrote:Ray, you went back to the intel program rather than the profile I sent?

I alternate. Sometimes I use your profile, sometimes the Intel settings depending on what I'm doing. For movies and photos, your profile is best.

raydabruce wrote:Fred: I'm going to assume your signature is a joke.

Netbooks are are small, lightweight notebooks designed for portability and general purpose computing. The X200 offers all these in spades, though I'd agree it's much better than a netbook. Perhaps the X series was just ahead of the times.

FredGarvin wrote:Netbooks are are small, lightweight notebooks designed for portability and general purpose computing. The X200 offers all these in spades, though I'd agree it's much better than a netbook. Perhaps the X series was just ahead of the times.

Comparing any mobile Atom processor to the i7-620m is like comparing a late-model Ferrari to a 1962 Volkswagen Beetle. No netbook I've seen can take more than 2GB of RAM and they also have weak GPUs, usually the "old" GMA 950. The 10" screens are too small for me at the limited 1024x600 resolution. 12.1" at 1280x800 is a world of difference, at least, to me.

True, my X201 cost 3 times as much as a netbook, but it has roughly 10 times the power and usability for what I want and need.

raydabruce wrote:The 10" screens are too small for me at the limited 1024x600 resolution.

Quite a few netbooks have 10" 1366x768 screens, specifically HP, Dell, Sony and Asus. I am thinking about upgrading my 240Z to either one of these or the new Sony X Series, the world's lightest laptop (1.6 lb).

pianowizard wrote:Quite a few netbooks have 10" 1366x768 screens, specifically HP, Dell, Sony and Asus. I am thinking about upgrading my 240Z to either one of these or the new Sony X Series, the world's lightest laptop (1.6 lb).

Wow, that's a lot of pixels to squeeze onto a 10" screen. My old eyes would have trouble with that. And yes, the Sony's are amazing... and pricey, too.

Sony P-series actually has 1600x768 on an 8" screen. Also has a pointing stick instead of touchpad.
Keyboard is probably too small to tolerate though; I used to have a Toshiba Libretto about that size. It was cool but I rarely used it.

Netbook CPU/GPUs are too weak for me (although I'm keeping an eye on the next generations). If someone can put the equivalent of my old X61 in a 10" screen package I would seriously consider it.

I'm not looking at anything else now, I just got my X201 a couple weeks ago. I'm happy enough with it that I don't think I'll be looking around for a few years. I'm getting tired of the constant upgrading and the expense of having the latest model. I'm going to try and just make what I have last for at least 3 yrs. By 2013 there will be some interesting new options and I'll probably succumb to upgrade fever once again.

In the meantime, I can always get an SSD for the X201 or, maybe, upgrade to 8GB of RAM (I can't imagine why, though).