Thinkpads Forum

Hey

My X200s 12.1” display rez is LED WXGA+ (1440x900)
The X220 12.5” display rez is (1366x768)

That’s notably lower, and the display is even 0.4” larger.

That low res is kinda of a deal breaker for me. I really appreciate the high resolution of my X200s and it has proven to help greatly with multiple windows etc.

Anyway has an idea why Lenovo decided to take a step backwards? I know the X220 display is probably better, but the rez, the rez guys, it’s lower.

Do you guys think there would be an X220s? as well? Or an X220 with a higher display rez ?

It's not a deal breaker for me. I have decent eyes and WXGA+ in a 12" makes text completely unusable and Win 7 scaling still isn't perfect. So it's a 32 pixel loss from WXGA for not just a tremendously better screen, but a tremendous screen in itself.

It's good that IPS is back but 16:9 format with only 768 vertical pixels is bad. For my work I can only open one window on 1440x900 display. Putting two windows side by side doesn't do any good.
1366x768 is making it worse.

Lenovo should have offered 1440x900 or 1280x800 in IPS even it costs few dollars more per display.

ComputerMinder wrote:Hey

My X200s 12.1” display rez is LED WXGA+ (1440x900)
The X220 12.5” display rez is (1366x768)

That’s notably lower, and the display is even 0.4” larger.

That low res is kinda of a deal breaker for me. I really appreciate the high resolution of my X200s and it has proven to help greatly with multiple windows etc.

Anyway has an idea why Lenovo decided to take a step backwards? I know the X220 display is probably better, but the rez, the rez guys, it’s lower.

Do you guys think there would be an X220s? as well? Or an X220 with a higher display rez ?

Well, the only possibility would be 1600x900 and I don't think they would do that. Looks like we are stuck with the res for this generation.

Just so you know, this has been going on for a while.

X61T - 1400x1050
X201T/X200T - 1280x800
X220T - 1366x768

X200s was an anomaly.

Resolution erosion!

sanjuro wrote:It's good that IPS is back but 16:9 format with only 768 vertical pixels is bad. For my work I can only open one window on 1440x900 display. Putting two windows side by side doesn't do any good.
1366x768 is making it worse.

Lenovo should have offered 1440x900 or 1280x800 in IPS even it costs few dollars more per display.

Seeing as how the whole industry is moving to 16:9 format, it won't be just "a few dollars more" to get an IPS 16:10 screen. We would just be stuck with 16:10 TN screen, and those are crappy, as everybody around these parts know.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather go with a 16:9 IPS screen. Luckily I'm not too high-strung on the switch to 16:9
With all your complain on resolutions maybe you should invest in a 15 inch laptop to get all the screen real-estate you need, or stick to an X200s or X201s.

AvalonXIII wrote: Seeing as how the whole industry is moving to 16:9 format, it won't be just "a few dollars more" to get an IPS 16:10 screen. We would just be stuck with 16:10 TN screen, and those are crappy, as everybody around these parts know.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather go with a 16:9 IPS screen. Luckily I'm not too high-strung on the switch to 16:9
With all your complain on resolutions maybe you should invest in a 15 inch laptop to get all the screen real-estate you need, or stick to an X200s or X201s.

I'm not high strung over 16:9. I have external IPS display for real work. I don't expect too much from notebook displays, especially from Lenovo. I just like want more vertical pixels for work when I am away from my external display. Is that too much to ask?

I am looking carefully at high resolution 15" macbook pro since their LCD's are better than most TN and offer up to 1050 pixels...

For now Apple is still staying at 16:10 and offer better LCD's for TN type.

If you look back at the X60s/X61s generation, the same amount of vertical pixels exists, and the resolution is even worst with 1024x768. I wouldn't necessarily say that this is a step backward.

sanjuro wrote:
I'm not high strung over 16:9. I have external IPS display for real work. I don't expect too much from notebook displays, especially from Lenovo. I just like want more vertical pixels for work when I am away from my external display. Is that too much to ask?

I am looking carefully at high resolution 15" macbook pro since their LCD's are better than most TN and offer up to 1050 pixels...

For now Apple is still staying at 16:10 and offer better LCD's for TN type.

Yeah but you are getting a physically shorter screen that doesn't provide anything but higher DPI. Higher DPI but the same amt of vertical pixels..it just means you squint for no reason whatsoever.

At the same DPI on a 4:3 you will be at SXGA+ resolution which actually gives you some vertical pixels.

AvalonXIII,

To each his own. You seem to like 16:9 IPS for X220.

If I have to choose, I want more vertical pixels for a small footprint LCD. If it is IPS with > 900 pixels, even better and I will gladly fork over my company's money.

AvalonXIII wrote:If you look back at the X60s/X61s generation, the same amount of vertical pixels exists, and the resolution is even worst with 1024x768. I wouldn't necessarily say that this is a step backward.

And that's the MAJOR problem of that machine. That's why people are doing a difficult AFFS mods with 1400x1050 IPS panels, which are available.

If Lenovo listened to their customers on this one they would make the X220 available with an 1440x900 IPS panel. That would be perfect.

Cunha wrote:At the same DPI on a 4:3 you will be at SXGA+ resolution which actually gives you some vertical pixels.

Well... 1366x768 on 12.5" is 124DPI, SXGA+ on 12.1" is 140DPI - nowhere near "the same", and above the comfort level for the average person. 1280x960 (SXGA) would be more like it, but even that would be 132DPI.

For 12" I would probably prefer a 1280x800 over 1366x768, but the difference is small.

IvanAndreevich wrote:If Lenovo listened to their customers on this one they would make the X220 available with an 1440x900 IPS panel. That would be perfect.

Well... Lenovo already listened to their customers in something, and brought IPS back to the non-tablet market. But customers never stop complaining. You give them something good - they ask why it isn't better. So if the machine is not perfectly suited to one's needs - it means that the manufacturer isn't listening to the customers?

dr_st wrote:Well... 1366x768 on 12.5" is 124DPI, SXGA+ on 12.1" is 140DPI - nowhere near "the same", and above the comfort level for the average person. 1280x960 (SXGA) would be more like it, but even that would be 132DPI.

For 12" I would probably prefer a 1280x800 over 1366x768, but the difference is small.

Good point.

Looking at my 14.1" SXGA+ (1400 x 1050) T42, the PPI (pixels per inch) is 124.11.
Looking at the 12.5" WXGA (1366 x 768) X220, the PPI (pixels per inch) is 125.37.

The X220 actually has more PPI (is higher density) than my SXGA+ T42!

dr_st wrote:Well... Lenovo already listened to their customers in something, and brought IPS back to the non-tablet market. But customers never stop complaining. You give them something good - they ask why it isn't better. So if the machine is not perfectly suited to one's needs - it means that the manufacturer isn't listening to the customers?

Also, offering an IPS option is much easier than remain 16:10.
For an IPS option, you just order IPS screens somewhere, and even if supply fails, you could still offer TN screens in your laptop. And the price will be acceptable because some other manufacturers may also use the same IPS screen. Even ordering IPS screens is not a big deal actually, since Lenovo orders the same IPS screens for their X220 tablet.
For 16:10, you should order 16:10 screens somewhere (there is not too much manufacturers offering 16:10 now on production numbers lower than that of iPad), and if supply fails, the entire laptop model is dead, you can no longer produce it, you're losing any profit it could make to you (and btw X220 seems to be the key product of 2011 for Lenovo), and you're losing all hardware parts you have manufactured for that laptop (e.g. cases, batteries etc). Also, the price will be higher because Lenovo would be the only consumer of such a screen; and after introduction of such a laptop, screens manufacturer can dictate any price they want just because Lenovo has no choice.
Also i wonder what is the point of asking 16:10. 16:10 is as well dead as is 4:3; for both 16:10 lenovo should design a new laptop model and order non-standart screens somewhere, so why not to ask 4:3 straight off?

penartur wrote:Also i wonder what is the point of asking 16:10. 16:10 is as well dead as is 4:3; for both 16:10 lenovo should design a new laptop model and order non-standart screens somewhere, so why not to ask 4:3 straight off?

Good point. This just shows how short our collective memory truly is. A few years ago everyone among the tallscreen advocates was bemoaning the transition from 4:3 to 8:5. But now 4:3 is all but forgotten, and suddenly 8:5 seems like a reasonable standard, and the same people mourn what seems the final victory of 16:9 (this is a phenomenon I observed on more than just this forum). Interestingly I've actually talked to some people who find 8:5 to be better than 4:3, but 16:9 is 'too wide' in their minds.

To the people who value high resolution, there usually is not a clear winner among the aspect ratios - it depends on what's available at any given screen size. This when comparing 14" - 4:3 SXGA+ is typically considered better than WXGA+ and even HD+, but for 12" with XGA being the de-facto standard in the age of 4:3, WXGA is a welcome change. Not to mention that the small laptops can actually benefit from the width as it allows for a larger, more spacious keyboard.

Personally i always used widescreen laptops since 2004 (my first college year and my first laptop), i've specifically searched for these.
You can see laptops i've used in my sig, with the oldest one being business-class ultraportable Fujitsu Lifebook P1032 manufactured in 2000 or maybe 2001 (it used rather unusual Transmeta Crusoe CPU), with the screen resolution of 1024*600 on 8.9" (one could easily calculate that this is 1.70(6):1, closer to 1.77(7):1 (16:9) than to 1.600:1 (16:10)). I always perceived tallscreen laptops as something weird even when most laptops on the market were tallscreen. Widescreen is just closer to my field of view.

dr_st wrote:Well... Lenovo already listened to their customers in something, and brought IPS back to the non-tablet market. But customers never stop complaining. You give them something good - they ask why it isn't better. So if the machine is not perfectly suited to one's needs - it means that the manufacturer isn't listening to the customers?

You tell me what the point of 16-9 aspect ratio in a WORK machine is. The X series is a work machine, not a multimedia toy for watching hd porn on the go.

IPS screen = excellent, great, and commendable.

Now if this http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=95062 is true and a 1600x900 IPS screen option is going to be available that would be beyond awesome!

IvanAndreevich wrote:You tell me what the point of 16-9 aspect ratio in a WORK machine is. The X series is a work machine, not a multimedia toy for watching hd porn on the go.

Excellent point. For 2048x1152 and higher resolutions, 16:9 is good for work. But anything less, 16:10 and 4:3 are usually better, i.e. 1920x1200 is better than 1920x1080 for 15.*-inchers, 1400x1050 is better than 1600x900 for 14.*-inchers or 12.*-inchers, etc.

IvanAndreevich wrote:Now if this http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=95062 is true and a 1600x900 IPS screen option is going to be available that would be beyond awesome!

Well, I wouldn't go so far. It's much better than 1366x768 for sure, but I would reserve "beyond awesome" for the 12.1" 1400x1050 of the X6* tablets. If you call the 12.5" 1600x900 "beyond awesome", what would you call the 12.1" 1400x1050?

pianowizard wrote:If you call the 12.5" 1600x900 "beyond awesome", what would you call the 12.1" 1400x1050?

The same beyondawesomity in terms of pixel density yet unusable because of its narrowness.
That to say, i love these thin bezels of old-school thinkpads, with such a thin bezels lenovo could put 13.3" in their X220 while retaining laptop's footprint. X220 with 13.3" FHD IPS = awesome as hell.

penartur wrote:The same beyondawesomity in terms of pixel density yet unusable because of its narrowness.

Ehhh, I was only interested in IvanAndreevich's answer, since, like me, he likes 1400x1050.

IvanAndreevich wrote:You tell me what the point of 16-9 aspect ratio in a WORK machine is. The X series is a work machine, not a multimedia toy for watching hd porn on the go.

I should tell you? You talk as if I orchestrated the move to 16:9. Did you ever witness me say that I prefer it?

And if 1366x768 is only suitable for watching high definition porn on the go, then I guess the 1024x768 we've lived with for years in X series are only good for standard definition porn.

For a given size, the wider the screen, the less surface area. This means, in plain terms, that manufacturers are essentially tricking consumers into getting smaller screens for the same price. This could mean more profit, but in reality it is likely that it simply means lower costs to stay in business in a very competitive environment.

All screens are widescreen, even 4:3 ones. It's just a matter of finding the sweet spot. I've come to the conclusion that 3:2 (1.5) would be a fantastic aspect ratio. It's exactly middle of the road between 4:3 (1.33) and 16:10 (1.66).

With a display this small, the standard resolution for this screen will be more than acceptable. We lost some more vertical pixels thanks to the switch to 16X9 by the industry but lenovo can't hold back those forces. This is going to be a good laptop and the fact that IPS's will be available STOCK will mean that besides the aspect ratio, there won't be nearly as much to complain about.

mikemex wrote:All screens are widescreen, even 4:3 ones. It's just a matter of finding the sweet spot. I've come to the conclusion that 3:2 (1.5) would be a fantastic aspect ratio. It's exactly middle of the road between 4:3 (1.33) and 16:10 (1.66).

Not too many examples of LCDs with 3:2 aspect ratio, but when Apple starting going widescreen on powerbooks (before macbook pros), they offered a "high resolution" LCD with 1440x960.

There are fewer vertical resolutions than SXGA+ (1400x1050) and slightly wider, but it was a pretty sweet LCD. Though it was TN and non-LED, it was pretty good for a TN screen and pretty bright. I sometimes still fire up my powerbook HR for the extra vertical resolution though now it is slow as a dog.

After that Apple and the rest of the notebook industry went to 16:10. I have to give credit to Lenovo for being one of the last to continue to offer 4:3 and also offering 16:9 on the T and X series.

I wish that Apple would bring back 3:2 LCD on notebooks then may be others will follow suite and offer more vertical pixels. I just hope that 16:9 will not be followed by 16:8, 16:7, 16:6...

dr_st wrote: should tell you? You talk as if I orchestrated the move to 16:9. Did you ever witness me say that I prefer it?

And if 1366x768 is only suitable for watching high definition porn on the go, then I guess the 1024x768 we've lived with for years in X series are only good for standard definition porn.

Well you did say that Lenovo listened to their customers. I don't know anyone who prefers a 16-9 screen for work.

First, 1024x768 was back in '06 and carried over to '07. That's 4 years ago. Second, we had the 1400x1050 IPS option for tablets, which is a heck of a lot better than 1366x768 now - that's 5 years later, and will probably stay for a generation or two. I do hope there is a 1600x900 option, because that would be pretty much as good as what we had 5 years ago.

pianowizard wrote:Well, I wouldn't go so far. It's much better than 1366x768 for sure, but I would reserve "beyond awesome" for the 12.1" 1400x1050 of the X6* tablets. If you call the 12.5" 1600x900 "beyond awesome", what would you call the 12.1" 1400x1050?

Well, first of all we have no hope of ever seeing a 4-3 Thinkpad. For me, 1600x900 is slightly inferior to 1400x1050 in terms of screen res, but the overall form factor of the machine is probably better. The X6x tablet is freaking square. It doesn't fit some places because of that. The X2xx keyboard is superior.

In the realm of possibilities, the option I would prefer to both 4-3 and 16-9 is a 16-10 high res IPS screen, like 1680x1050 or 1440x900.

1600x900 IPS panel in the X220 would be the best ever non-modded non-tablet X series Thinkpad screen as far as I'm concerned. Offering IPS as an option in non-tablets is a very good trend!

IvanAndreevich wrote:Well you did say that Lenovo listened to their customers. I don't know anyone who prefers a 16-9 screen for work.

They did. IPS is back for non-tablets, at least in one product line (HP for example also has IPS in some of their other product lines). As far as 16:9 screens - Lenovo is not different than any other manufacturer. No one is offering anything other than 16:9 in their new product lines.

IvanAndreevich wrote:First, 1024x768 was back in '06 and carried over to '07. That's 4 years ago. Second, we had the 1400x1050 IPS option for tablets, which is a heck of a lot better than 1366x768 now - that's 5 years later, and will probably stay for a generation or two. I do hope there is a 1600x900 option, because that would be pretty much as good as what we had 5 years ago.

Leaving tablets aside, the last X61 models with 1024x768 were withdrawn as late as May 2009 - less than two years ago. The earliest X200 models (first time there was anything over 1024x768 in the non-tablet sector) were introduced in summer 2008.

Tablets are a different niche in my book - if one is not willing to make a distinction, then IPS was never really gone from laptops.

I totally agree with you that the more options - the better. Personally, on a 12", I would choose WXGA IPS over WXGA+ TN any day, but a higher res IPS option would make the decision much harder. Like most people, I like high resolution, but don't like to strain my eyes more than needed.

dr_st wrote:No one is offering anything other than 16:9 in their new product lines.

Apple maintains 16:10 except the 11" Air, but that's probably to get a larger keyboard.

Yes, I knew someone would bring this up. Thank you, Fred.

Give them one more generation, then.

dr_st wrote:Yes, I knew someone would bring this up. Thank you, Fred.

Admit it -- you have never heard of Apple! LOL!

IvanAndreevich wrote:In the realm of possibilities, the option I would prefer to both 4-3 and 16-9 is a 16-10 high res IPS screen, like 1680x1050 or 1440x900.

On this forum, we have talked about lots of "rumors" over the years, most recently the 1600x900 option for the X220. But for me, the most exciting rumor to date was the 14.1" T400 having 1680x1050.