Thinkpads Forum

filmbuff wrote:personally, i like and miss the 4:3 displays. i would be more than willing to go back to a 92% keyboard, paired to a 1280x1024 display

For a 4:3 screen, the resolution would be 1280x960, since 1280x1024 is 5:4. I have never seen 1280x960 on a laptop, but some of the X60 and X61 tablets did have 12.1" 1400x1050, which is even better than 1280x960 assuming your vision is good enough.

filmbuff wrote:the fact that the voting is currently evenly split 50-50 rather disputes the notion that people nowadays prefer widescreens over 4:3 displays, at least with long-time laptop users.

You are generalizing way too much here. Bill Bolton pointed out one reason. Another reason is that this poll compares specifically the design of the X61s with that of the X201s, and not 4:3 versus 16:10 per se. Had Lenovo made the display bezel of the X201s as thin as that of the X61s, more people would probably have voted for the X201s. Browse around on this forum and you will see that people have criticized the X2**'s thick bezels countless times.

Bill & pianowizard,

admittedly the sampling/participation rate isn't great enough, but couldn't you say that about pretty much any poll on this forum?

Does anyone know why the bezel is so large?

If it had the same form factor as the X61 is could have had a 13" screen in the same body.

Is this a matter of strength to the screen or is it a design flaw that got by?

Easier to manage more wireless antennas with a thick bezel.

contrary to popular belief, it has absolutely nothing to do with the antennas.   it's thick because of having a full-size keyboard.   if a smaller keyboard were developed specific to the X200 then the bezel could have been made smaller.   the designers chose to go with a full-size keyboard, outweighing function over aesthetics.

had someone made a 12.8" 16:10 widescreen then the bezel would have been thinner.   as it stands, 12.1" and 13.3" were the only options at the time.

I guess it depends on whether you are talking about the side bezels or top bezel. The side bezels are really about as thin as can be with a full size keyboard (evident from this pic: http://laptoping.com/wp-content/lenovo_ ... x200_2.jpg)

However the top bezel is what bothering most people, since it what makes the X200 almost as tall as the X61, and people ask why it is that they get a laptop with an increased width and almost no decrease in depth.

It's the top bezel where the antennas go, but it's probably again not the only reason for it being as thick. Thinner bezel means that the base itself is less deep, so you have less room for components inside the chassis (and for the optional touchpad).

A similar thing can be observed in the comparison of Z61t versus T61, both 14" widescreens. The Z61t has a much thinner and prettier bezel, and the laptop is less deep, but a couple of compromises had to be made - the hard drive could not fit next to the optical drive - it had to be moved to the other side, which necessitated port placement shuffling, and you ended up with 3 USB ports on the same side, two of which are very close together - not ideal design. An alternative would be to use 1.8" drives (X4x laptops did just that), but I'm sure you can see the downsides of such decision.

So it's not as simple as just a matter of aesthetics. There is a complex balance that must be struck between design and engineering.

to compensate for a shorter bezel the palmrest would have had to be shortened or a 6-row keyboard used.   no one wanted either option.

there's also a camera at the top that wasn't present in the X6 series.   and, while the antennas don't need as much room as they've been afforded, they do get better reception being further from the LCD panel rather than being tucked behind like in the X6.

with 16:9 panels upon us and everyone wanting web cams, very few products in the industry (if any) will have thin bezels.

pianowizard wrote:For a 4:3 screen, the resolution would be 1280x960, since 1280x1024 is 5:4. I have never seen 1280x960 on a laptop, but some of the X60 and X61 tablets did have 12.1" 1400x1050, which is even better than 1280x960 assuming your vision is good enough.

I always thought 1280x960 would be a great resolution for the older X series notebooks.

filmbuff wrote:it's hardly surprising that the x201s outperforms the x61s in the mentioned areas...it is after all, a generation later. there's no question that the x201 offers more bang-for-the-buck than the x61s.

i think what the OP was polling about was, "if Lenovo made a 4:3 version of the x201 which had similar peforming specs in all the main areas, which model would people likely buy"?

personally, i like and miss the 4:3 displays. i would be more than willing to go back to a 92% keyboard, paired to a 1280x1024 display, with the same cpu and battery life that is available on the x201 and that would be my ideal laptop. there's likely no reason that Lenovo couldn't do it except their profit margin per unit would be less because the 4:3 LCD displays are more expensive to manufacture.

the fact that the voting is currently evenly split 50-50 rather disputes the notion that people nowadays prefer widescreens over 4:3 displays, at least with long-time laptop users.

exactly.

if you can get a x201s in a x61s form factor, would you prefer it? Personally the wasted real estate on the screen on the x201s makes me a bit mad. But the x201s are awesome in their own right. I'm just not over the 4:3. Lenovo was the last to hold out but sadly it seems that the days of the 4:3 are over even in the business world.

Had I voted two months ago, my vote would have been for the X61s. I actually purchased the X61s when the X200 first came out. I made the choice back then to stick with 4:3. I've been using the X series as my daily drivers for a long time and I was absolutely fine with the reduced keyboard size and lower resolution. I purchased a X200 a little less than two months ago from a forum member. I bought it mostly due to the additional digital video output on the ultrabase.

After actually having used the X200, I like the form factor a bit better. The larger keyboard is much more comfortable for long periods of time. The wider bezel may not be as attractive, but it doesn't hinder usage and is not a distraction. I find the extra width of the base makes it more comfortable to use on my lap as well. I also never liked how the 8 cell battery stuck out the back of the X61s, and the 4 cell battery never really had an adequate usage time for my purposes. The 6 cell in the X200 lasts long enough for what I need it for and sits flush. For my usage, the X200 does have a shorter depth (of the base), weighs a bit less, and doesn't have the awkward looking battery sticking out the back. When I choose one to use, I find myself preferring the X200. So, I voted for the X201s.

small sample but x61 still in the lead

The people answering this poll are likely not representative of the Lenovo customer base, much less the market as a whole. It would be interesting to find out whether Lenovo's market share for Thinkpads has grown since introducing widescreen displays on Thinkpads.

jvarszegi wrote:It would be interesting to find out whether Lenovo's market share for Thinkpads has grown since introducing widescreen displays on Thinkpads.

if you read the news, Lenovo's marketshare has increased but how is that relevant to the topic which is do consumers prefer 4:3 or widescreen displays?

Lenovo has stopped offering 4:3 displays in their ultraportable line. so you either get with the program and buy into a 16:10 model (soon to be 16:9) or buy a discontinued model and settle for less performance, battery life, and driver support.

not exactly much of a choice, is it?!

jvarszegi wrote:It would be interesting to find out whether Lenovo's market share for Thinkpads has grown since introducing widescreen displays on Thinkpads.

It's not that simple. The migration to widescreen wasn't the only thing that Lenovo changed. Along with that change, Lenovo also made the screen bezel thicker, made the screen more off-centered in most models, changed the keyboards to the chiclet style in several models, drastically reduced prices across all models, and I am sure there have been other major changes that I can't remember off the top of my head. All these other changes could have affected Lenovo's market share.

For me, even though I usually prefer 16:10 over 4:3, I stopped buying Lenovo Thinkpads after they switched from 4:3 to 16:10 because I don't like the looks of widescreen Thinkpads.

filmbuff wrote:if you read the news, Lenovo's marketshare has increased but how is that relevant to the topic which is do consumers prefer 4:3 or widescreen displays?

Some people prefer widescreen displays. In the times when Lenovo/IBM was continuing to offer only 4:3 and other manufacturers were offering widescreen models, some of those people probably avoided buying Thinkpads for just this reason, or this reason in addition to others.

If today Lenovo has increased market share after going widescreen, although part of that increase has to be due to marketing and other factors, one certainly cannot decide that, say, half the Thinkpad users of today would prefer a 4:3 screen based on the restricted poll here. That's all. (In fact, if roughly 50% of people here in this bastion of curmudgeonly long-term Thinkpad fans prefer widescreens, I'm guessing that the percentage of all Thinkpad users happy with the widescreen approach is quite a bit higher.)

Choice is good. I was put out when Lenovo stopped offering 4:3 models. In fact, in a larger screen that's still what I might prefer (though I will likely never buy a large-screen laptop again). However, in a smaller laptop the wide screen makes more sense because it enables a bigger keyboard.

pianowizard wrote:I stopped buying Lenovo Thinkpads after they switched from 4:3 to 16:10 because I don't like the looks of widescreen Thinkpads.

Odd-looking beasts like the Edge aside, I have to say that I don't enjoy seeing a full-sized keyboard swimming in wasted surface space. I also never use webcams, so increasing bezel thickness on the top of screens doesn't appeal to me. Still, the main gripes I have with the Thinkpads I've used have always been functional. The X201 with 9-cell we just bought is a nice machine, but I don't understand why it's so dang wedge-shaped, especially with that battery. I would prefer the X series to be slightly smaller, lighter, and much more flat (preferably perfectly flat), like the X100e. The X201s is better that way, but out of production, more expensive, less powerful, and still not flat.

In fact what I'd like is an X100e-like machine, maybe slightly bigger, with X201 ruggedness and exterior coating etc., real processors instead of this current AMD garbage which runs hot and with subpar battery life, in an 11.6-12.1" size, flat with all battery options instead of wedge-shaped, under 1" thick, without wasted bezel space, no webcam, a real card slot, HDMI output, separate headphone and microphone jacks, a Thinklight, and the chiclet keyboard. I'd gladly pay $1,000+ for something like that, even if it didn't offer the highest-end processing. I hope that Lenovo offers something like that someday; in the meantime my X201 offers the power my X100e lacks, but the latter is actually ergonomically nicer to use with the exception of the larger screen.

EDIT: Changed erroneous "X201s" we've bought to "X201".

pianowizard wrote:Lenovo also ... changed the keyboards to the chiclet style in several models,

I'd say, "marketed some IdeaPads under ThinkPad brand".

jvarszegi wrote:I would prefer the X series to be slightly ... lighter
...
In fact what I'd like is an X100e-like machine

By the way, X100e, with its 11" screen and AMD garbage, starts from 3lbs, while X201 starts from 2.89lbs (according to lenovo site), and X201s is even lighter.

Here's hoping that after the resounding chiclet keyboard success, Lenovo offers it as an option in more Thinkpads, although it will be good if they can keep the non-chiclet as an option. It doesn't make as much sense in larger models, perhaps, where top-button surface area is not at such a premium, but it is simply more efficient.

jvarszegi wrote:In fact, if roughly 50% of people here in this bastion of curmudgeonly long-term Thinkpad fans prefer widescreens, I'm guessing that the percentage of all Thinkpad users happy with the widescreen approach is quite a bit higher.

Just to explain my vote, the first thinkpad i've used was widescreen 15" R61i (and R61i is a garbage... although other modern laptops are even worse). However, i've been using widescreen laptops since 2005 (when i've got my first laptop, it was Lifebook P1032 back from year 2001); and, letting all other differences aside, i'd definitely not purchased any 4:3 screen laptop, no matter how good it is in other means.
I just can't understand these square screen fans. Human vision is widescreen, and that's why movies are shot widescreen, and, as a consequence, LCD screens are going wide.
While some there are complaining that widescreens are too low, i'm complaining that square screens are too narrow.

penartur wrote:By the way, X100e, with its 11" screen and AMD garbage, starts from 3lbs, while X201 starts from 2.89lbs (according to lenovo site), and X201s is even lighter.

Mostly correct. The X100e IIRC is under three pounds total if configured with the 3-cell battery, and slightly over with the 6-cell, though you are right that it has a higher starting weight.

More importantly, I can tell you from first-hand personal knowledge that the difference in weight is absolutely negligible when carrying these machines (perhaps not with an X201s, as I've never owned one), but the size difference is not (and this cuts both ways: the X201 screen is quite noticeably and nicely bigger in actual use, and the chassis is quite noticeably bigger when stuffed into a bag or carried, especially with the 9-cell battery).

I would be thrilled to have more X201 features in a machine the exact size of the X100e, at the X100e weight, even if it cost as much as an X201. Things I'd like to see would be better processor and hard drive options, Thinklight, better rubberized coating for the outside of the machine, perfectly flat LCD top cover, better port options, better card slot, etc. They could leave the ergonomics, overall form factor, and weight alone.

penartur wrote:Just to explain my vote, the first thinkpad i've used was widescreen 15" R61i (and R61i is a garbage... although other modern laptops are even worse). However, i've been using widescreen laptops since 2005 (when i've got my first laptop, it was Lifebook P1032 back from year 2001); and, letting all other differences aside, i'd definitely not purchased any 4:3 screen laptop, no matter how good it is in other means.
I just can't understand these square screen fans. Human vision is widescreen, and that's why movies are shot widescreen, and, as a consequence, LCD screens are going wide.
While some there are complaining that widescreens are too low, i'm complaining that square screens are too narrow.

It's funny, but after using widescreen displays for a while, my 4:3 displays seem incredibly tall. When I was a computer programmer I used to love that, since I could fit more lines on a page, and would usually minimize my tearaway menus or locate them along the top or bottom of the screen if width was a problem. I also bought into the idea that reading etc. were better on a thinner, taller screen, as was composing a document in an office program.

After using widescreens more, I definitely prefer them. Most of the things I read are in a format that can take advantage of the width, for example web results in research sites I use. Spreadsheets are definitely easier to work with in widescreen. I haven't had any problem composing documents. A lot of applications, like Photoshop, are much easier to use with extra space on the sides for palettes and menus. I wonder how many people clinging to their X6x, T6x laptops etc. will actually wind up liking widescreens when they're pretty much forced to use them if they want competitive technology.

jvarszegi wrote:I would be thrilled to have more X201 features in a machine the exact size of the X100e, at the X100e weight, even if it cost as much as an X201. Things I'd like to see would be better processor and hard drive options, Thinklight, better rubberized coating for the outside of the machine, perfectly flat LCD top cover, better port options, better card slot, etc. They could leave the ergonomics, overall form factor, and weight alone.

I would rather prefer 13" screen in X201 chassis

Yep, I'm with you there. I think the 13.3" screen size is just about perfect. It's too bad the X301 is gone from the lineup (for now) and was offered at such a high price. Someone else posted recently that a 12.8" screen size is all that would fit in the current X201 lid, but making the machine slightly wider would be fine with me. It would also free up some interior space that could be used to make the machine less wedge-shaped. Just like an X301, I guess.

I guess if I were in charge of everything, I'd have a mini-mite Thinkpad at a sub-12" size, but with all the real Thinkpad features I could squeeze in, instead of the borderline netbook that is the X100e, or the glossy Edge series. I'd definitely have something like the X301, but with a wider range of configuration options to drop the price of entry a little further. I'd probably keep the 12" flavor too, but make it more like the X301: flat and elegant, instead of stubby and muscular looking.

widescreen thinkpads defnitely look odd. I share the same hatred also. I have a z61t but would've much preferred a t60

pianowizard wrote: For me, even though I usually prefer 16:10 over 4:3, I stopped buying Lenovo Thinkpads after they switched from 4:3 to 16:10 because I don't like the looks of widescreen Thinkpads.

Call me crazy, but I actually like the wedge shape of the X201 because of better typing angles and elevation from my desk for cooling. I wouldn't be angry at all though if they made it flat, though, I just think there are trade-offs.

I like how the X tapers down at the front because it's more comfortable when I rest my wrists on the laptop. My hands are just long enough though that the raised edge on the right side of the X20x is irritating. For me, the X6x is more comfortable in this respect.

filmbuff wrote:the fact that the voting is currently evenly split 50-50 rather disputes the notion that people nowadays prefer widescreens over 4:3 displays, at least with long-time laptop users.

I reread some of the earlier posts in this thread and thought that we really need a separate poll to address the above claim by filmbuff. This thread is really about the X61s versus the X201s, not 4:3 versus widescreen per se. Just because the X61s is liked by more people doesn't mean 1024x768 is more popular than 1440x900. Please contribute to the new poll I just started in this thread: "What's your favorite resolution on a 12.1" laptop screen?".

While I have neither X61s nor X200s, I have both X61 and X200, so I feel qualified enough to give you my opinion.

First of all, X61 is truly an ultraportable, while the X200 is not. For an ultraportable every gramm and milimeter counts and in this aspect the X200 is simply not on the same league.

Sure, for the size you get three things missing on the X61: larger (flush) battery, larger keyboard and higher resolution screen. But X200's size seems so wasted... the screen is actually smaller than on the X61 (because for those not aware of the issue, for a given diagonal size, the widest the screen, the smaller the area).

I'm sure that it obeys engineering reasons, like it was pointed before, had they made it less deep, it would have gotten a much smaller palmrest. I suppose they decided to make it wider both to acomodate a full size keyboard and at the same time a 6 cell battery.

So I don't prefer either. Had they followed IBM and put a 6 cell battery on the front of the machine like with the X31 and a 1280x960 standard screen, there would be little reason for me to go for the X200 format.

---------------------

Now that we are at it, I've thought that instead of going wider and wider, they could go back and make newer widescreens with an aspect ratio of 1.5 (1024x768 is 1.33 and 1280x800 is 1.66). The X200 could fit nicely a 13" screen with a resolution of 1440x960. If you want to try and give you an idea, cut a sheet of paper to 275x183mm (about 10.8 x 7.2 if you're still using inches) and put it over the X200. I'd call it X320 or something. It supports my claim that X61 and X200 belong to different classes.

mikemex wrote:While I have neither X61s nor X200s, I have both X61 and X200, so I feel qualified enough to give you my opinion.

First of all, X61 is truly an ultraportable, while the X200 is not. For an ultraportable every gramm and milimeter counts and in this aspect the X200 is simply not on the same league.

Sure, for the size you get three things missing on the X61: larger (flush) battery, larger keyboard and higher resolution screen. But X200's size seems so wasted... the screen is actually smaller than on the X61 (because for those not aware of the issue, for a given diagonal size, the widest the screen, the smaller the area).

I'm sure that it obeys engineering reasons, like it was pointed before, had they made it less deep, it would have gotten a much smaller palmrest. I suppose they decided to make it wider both to acomodate a full size keyboard and at the same time a 6 cell battery.

So I don't prefer either. Had they followed IBM and put a 6 cell battery on the front of the machine like with the X31 and a 1280x960 standard screen, there would be little reason for me to go for the X200 format.

Couldn't of said it better myself. Comon lenovo, work your magic. Either come out with an x61 type format with an SXGA+ screen or get rid of the wasted space on the x200's. Or you can be really smart and come out with both. All the people who still want an 4:3 will still come to you. YOU WILL HAVE THE MONOPOLY on the market.