Thinkpads Forum

I think thats the reason I've done it, its due to a bad combo of factors, both concerning the laptop, and other factors. Before I received it, I was asked to pay another 70 quid Uk tax... not that impressed, but nevertheless paid it. From the last few weeks, I've been working with both a T43p, and the T400.

The T43p's fans are always on, no matter how much I try to undervolt, after a while I just ignored it. Not that bothered. By contrast, T400 was dead cool and silent. Kudos to the maker. That said, my config didnt have any powerful parts and I undervolted, while tweaking CPU setting, no 3470, nor 35W CPU; where as the T43p was a top-end spec'ed laptop.

I guess I could say its an okay laptop, just not one as I'd liked, and certainly not something I'd used for the next few years in Uni. I'll be taking the laptop to classes often, and whats better than a thinkpad for that? that said, I also intend to play a bit on the laptop; thus wrongly assumed it was going have better multimedia performance, than the T43p. But speakers still just.... and the screen isn't for movies...

Performance wise, once I tweaked the system to minimum, there was nothing to criticise, just that it wasn't fast neither. These days, any C2D based laptop is fast enough, provided you could tweak the settings. Upon first opening the box, 88 processes at the start was a shock, really a pain to live with - once I managed to down it to 60, its was kinda okay.

Compare the form factor to a good old 4:3 T4x, T400 more like a 15 inch laptop- the screen was much wider, and the bezel is thicker than Steve Jobs, just there, right in your face - they probably even could have fitted a 15 inch screen. Speaking of which, the WXGA+ CCFL screen was barely bright enough in my office, had to stick my head closer to see - also panel was washed out, well, its a Thinkpad... Used Intel GMA setting to sorted it out, eventually.

I'm only used to the UK keypad layout, with the big entre key. But since I bought the laptop from America, the US keypad is plain awkard to use, not to mention, the version I got is the first, so the flex was terrible compared to my solid T43p. While I'm sure the solution is a simple replacement keypad, and some serious tape work; I was just not prepared to open the system up, replace the keypad and get rid of the flex. While I've found taking things apart to be a walk in the park, but putting it back, is a challenge that I just didnt wanna to take on.

The palmrest sounded and felt too plastic when tabbed. And generally the interior plastic bits felt cheap - business looking, but not solid as I'd liked. Think I'll get a Macbook pro 13 next, or most likely a XPS 13; cos a high nit T400 will be just to expensive. Macbook pro too limited. This is the last time I'm importing a laptop...

Quicklite wrote:Compare the form factor to a good old 4:3 T4x, T400 more like a 15 inch laptop- the screen was much wider, and the bezel is thicker

How true...

I said it before and will say it again:

A T61 / T400 with a 6 cell battery is both wider and deeper compared to a 4:3 T61 with 6 cell battery, thus nullifying the whole widescreen argument.

It even gets very close to a T60 15" 4:3 depth. It exceeds it in width.

jcvjcvjcvjcv wrote:A T61 / T400 with a 6 cell battery is both wider and deeper compared to a 4:3 T61 with 6 cell battery, thus nullifying the whole widescreen argument.

I don't perceive any notable difference in terms of dimensions vs physical usability when actually carrying either type around.

However, the widescreen format is much more useful than 4:3.

Cheers,

Bill

bill bolton wrote:However, the widescreen format is much more useful than 4:3.

Useful to you, that is.

I would much rather have SXGA+ over WXGA+. And a great deal of users would agree.

bill bolton wrote:However, the widescreen format is much more useful than 4:3.

You can't possibly think of this as a general rule when so many people complain about it.

I know exactly why I prefer 4:3 for my work and it's not because I'm used to it. Having more vertical space simply improve my productivity. That means I don't mind a widescreen if it has the vertical space I need but in a notebook world this means the machine is going to be huge and heavy. A step backwards for me.

yak wrote: I know exactly why I prefer 4:3 for my work and it's not because I'm used to it. Having more vertical space simply improve my productivity. ..

Complaining about wide screen due to a lack of vertical space is a myth to me.

When 4:3 laptop screen dominated in the past, most screens were just XGA with 1024x768 resolution (well, i know there are SXGA+ and UXGA, but they are high-end and not widely used). While nowadays wide screen offers 1280x800 as a start point. One even got extra 32 pixels in vertical dimention compared to a 4:3 XGA. And don't forget the other wide screen options: WXGA+(1440x900), WSXGA+(1680x1050) and WUXGA (1920x1200). So wide screen can offer the same degree of vertical space as those decent 4:3 sceens (with just the pity of no IPS flexview). Personally I think WSXGA+(1680x1050) would be the best screen (enough horizontal&vertical space and acceptable font size) had it have IPS flexview.

Your XGA-->WXGA comparison is a fair and true one, but if we are talking about the maximum resolutions available for 14" models in particular, they happen to be SXGA+ (1400x1050) and WXGA+ (1440x900), and the lack of vertical space of the latter is noticeable.

Futhermore, it's true that in other sizes, you can often find that wider resolutions exist at no vertical space loss. For instance, SXGA+/WSXGA+ and UXGA/WUXGA for 15" model. So in theory, you can go for the widescreen and enjoy the best of both worlds.

However, since the vertical dimension of the screen is physically smaller, cramming the same number of vertical lines, means much smaller pixels, which at these extreme sizes means - a lot more eyestrain. Compare 133PPI for UXGA 15" versus 147PPI for WUXGA for 15.4".

The vertical resolution of 900 is okay, its just the laptop felt too wide, and not portable enough; I know the difference is merely 150 pixels, nevertheless its fairly noticeable in MS word, where the horizontal length is disproportional. Before getting T400, I never really minded the difference, but now, I know..

dr_st wrote:And a great deal of users would agree.

"A great deal"

yak wrote:You can't possibly think of this as a general rule when so many people complain about it.

Though some here people complain frequently and loudly about it.... there is no indication that it has specifically impacted ThinkPad, or overall laptop market, sales at all.

I'll join the semi-off-topic semi-flame.

It's been here many times and probably will keep popping out, until we go through 16:9, 2.35:1 to finally rediscover the plain old 4:3. Offering only 16:10 didn't have a chance of impacting sales - ThinkPads were one of the last to make the move, so there was basically no alternative. Moreover, it's been pushed down to people's heads that widescreen is better, shinier, prettier, great for movies, you do watch movies on the way, don't say you're not. Most people won't complain if you carefully "explain" them that what you're throwing at them is better, especially if you support it with a little lower price. I guess everyone can find an example around them.

From the machines currently available on market, I very much like the T400s. Even encountered one well spec'd in local store for a decent price, something I wouldn't believe I'll see here in Europe. But the widescreen almost keeps me from even thinking about buying one. The problem is that there's no choice.

Actually, there are very few things that require more horizontal space than 4:3 offers. Web browsing, programming, 2D graphics, office work... most of this is better of with vertical space (of course, except for the standard pro-widescreen argument: movies (agreed) and large tables, where it might be _sometimes_ useful to have more width - I recommend each of these people to try a machine with touchpad capable of two-finger horizontal scrolling).

That said, I do have widescreen desktop display, and quite like it. But that's 1920x1200 with DPI of 95. Enough space for working with more applications side by side. And still I would have probably chosen 4:3 one, if it weren't twice the price (of not very cheap VA-based LCD).

Footnote. When I was thinking about replacing my previous laptop, I was examining what was available, and found out that there basically aren't 4:3 notebooks anymore (before that I had 15" 1400x1050, rather no-name). So I have basically settled on 14" T60, but still originally wanted to give the decision some time to "work in the background" - what made me rush the purchase was rumour about T60 being the last 4:3 ThinkPad.

crazyfrog wrote:Complaining about wide screen due to a lack of vertical space is a myth to me.

When 4:3 laptop screen dominated in the past, most screens were just XGA with 1024x768 resolution (well, i know there are SXGA+ and UXGA, but they are high-end and not widely used). While nowadays wide screen offers 1280x800 as a start point. One even got extra 32 pixels in vertical dimention compared to a 4:3 XGA. And don't forget the other wide screen options: WXGA+(1440x900), WSXGA+(1680x1050) and WUXGA (1920x1200). So wide screen can offer the same degree of vertical space as those decent 4:3 sceens (with just the pity of no IPS flexview). Personally I think WSXGA+(1680x1050) would be the best screen (enough horizontal&vertical space and acceptable font size) had it have IPS flexview.

Good point about the low end displays. I had an XGA notebook before but later moved to SXGA+. My discontent with current offerings comes from the lack of a good upgrade path for my 14.1" SXGA+ notebook. If I'm to retain the vertical resolution, I have to sacrifice the portability and go with a 15.4" machine (WSXGA+). If I look only at machines with similar overall size and weight, I won't find one with the same amount of vertical space and that's the lack of space I'm complaining about. I probably also wouldn't want a WSXGA+ 14.1" laptop, too big pixel density I think. I guess what I want is 14.1" SXGA+ .

But we're getting slightly off topic here...

Edit: Just to add as I just saw Zender's post and he mentioned it. I also have a widescreen desktop monitor, a 16:9 one, and I like it. If a widescreen external monitor provides me with enough vertical space then the extra width is most welcome. No portability trade-offs here as I don't have to carry it around. I can use the extra space to improve my multitasking and of course it's perfect for the occasional movie. But notebooks with their size constrains are a different story.

Honestly, I like Widescreen. Probably because I'm used to the lower-end displays crazyfrog mentioned.

Nope. Not a good point about low-end 4:3 displays. Not for me or anyone whose eyesight is, shall we say, not the best. As long as Windows icons and other stuff didn't scale properly I have preferred the XGA displays of yore, one of the reasons I hadn't upgraded in 6 years. Even the 13.3" 1280x800 display I'm using right now is more high res. than I'd really like. It doesn't matter so much with OS X, nor will it matter anymore with Windows 7, which I belive implements improved scaling over previous Windows OSs, but guess what, once myself and other people like me move on to that OS and scale everything up to what's comfortable for us, the lack of vertical space will be felt. Not when you're watching movies, of course, but when you're word-processing. yak, you've had it right all along. Everyone has their ideal trade-off between size and weight. You can get the X-series in 12" and 13". The T series in 14" and 15" and so on. So why no longer 4:3 displays? I'd actually be curious for someone to explain that properly to me. Has it got to do with widescreen media and the commodisation of laptops? Do consumer laptops outsell business machines by so much that we've flipped to widescreen across the board for better production efficiencies and prices? Or are we simply following a fashion trend? Or do you think it is that more sinister reason, which I've also heard, that a screen of a given diameter has less surface area when it's widescreen. E.g. they can cut more 14" (say) widescreens than 14" 4:3 screens out of an LCD sheet (don't know the correct term for this), yet sell them at a similar price.

bill bolton wrote:"A great deal"

I will refer you to Matt Kohut's comment on Lenovoblogs:
http://lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/?p=83#comment-13987
And here's the relevant quote, to save time:

I respectfully disagree with your statement “backlash from corporate users was minimal.” I’ve got a list longer than my arm in 4 point font of corporate customers who don’t want to be forced into widescreen.

bill bolton wrote:Though some here people complain frequently and loudly about it.... there is no indication that it has specifically impacted ThinkPad, or overall laptop market, sales at all.

Why would it affect sales at all? It's not like there is an alternative. 4:3 screens were essentially gone from the mainstream and replaced with widescreens within 1-2 laptop generations. The laptop industry literally moved from 90%+ standard screens to 90%+ wide screens before you could say Jack Robinson. People aren't going stop buying laptops - they'll just go for what they consider best for them given what's offered. And in this particular area, there had been no choice - not before the widescreen boom, not after it.

dr_st wrote:I will refer you to Matt Kohut's comment on Lenovoblogs

They still buy widescreen ThinkPads.

Cheers,

Bill B.

bill bolton wrote:They still buy widescreen ThinkPads.

dr_st wrote:It's not like there is an alternative.

Talk is cheap, as everyone in technology product development learns quickly from the school of hard knocks (aka the market).

If there is a real and widespread consumer issue with lack of specific functionality, buyers simply stop consuming when there is no alternative.

They haven't stopped consuming widescreen laptops, so that in iteself is adequate indication that it simply wasn't in fact a real and widespread buyer issue with widescreen formats.

Cheers,

Bill

I would say that widescreen on a laptop is not a show stopper. The issue is not big enough to stop people from getting any notebooks at all.

But that doesn't mean "the widescreen format is much more useful than 4:3" either.

yak wrote:But that doesn't mean "the widescreen format is much more useful than 4:3" either.

See previous...

Cheers,

Bill B.

bill bolton wrote: I don't perceive any notable difference in terms of dimensions vs physical usability when actually

carrying either type around.

However, the widescreen format is much more useful than 4:3.

Cheers,

Bill

Really? What do you do with your 40 additional pixels? Stash the taskbar in it to re-gain some of the

vertical loss?

How is it that 40 more pixels are MUCH more usefull (even with the 150 pixels vertical loss) and the

size issue is not perceivable?

dr_st wrote:Useful to

you, that is.

I would much rather have SXGA+ over WXGA+. And a great deal of users

would agree.

Common sense

yak wrote: I know exactly why I prefer 4:3 for my work and it's not because I'm used to it. Having more vertical

space simply improve my productivity. ..

Complaining about wide screen due to a lack of vertical space is a myth to me.

When 4:3 laptop screen dominated in the past, most screens were just XGA with 1024x768 resolution

(well, i know there are SXGA+ and UXGA, but they are high-end and not widely used). While nowadays

wide screen offers 1280x800 as a start point. One even got extra 32 pixels in vertical dimention

compared to a 4:3 XGA. And don't forget the other wide screen options: WXGA+(1440x900),

WSXGA+(1680x1050) and WUXGA (1920x1200). So wide screen can offer the same degree of vertical space

as those decent 4:3 sceens (with just the pity of no IPS flexview). Personally I think

WSXGA+(1680x1050) would be the best screen (enough horizontal&vertical space and acceptable font

size) had it have IPS flexview.[/quote]

"Most screens" aren't 'ThinkPads'

I see this: the 14" segment looses bigtime with the widescreen nightmare. From 1600x1200 to nothing,

from 1400x1050 to 1440x900 and from 1024x768 to 1280x800, the last both not Thinkpad worthy, in the

other cases resulting in a loss of pixels and resulting in a bigger laptop (battery has got to go

somewhere...)

1680x1050 still results in a bigger notebook or a smaller pixelpitch. Pick your poison.

bill bolton wrote: "A great deal"


Though some here people complain frequently and loudly about it.... there is no indication

that it has specifically impacted ThinkPad, or overall laptop market, sales at all.

Do you go walking when your current car breaks down and the new cars are all light-weight, small,

deathly "green" cars?

Yeah, "A great deal" is just something like "MUCH", except that for "A great deal" there is actually

something behind it. I still have to see how 1440x900 is 'MUCH' better then 1400x1050.

Zender wrote:I'll join the semi-off-topic semi-flame.

It's been here many times and probably will keep popping out, until we go through 16:9, 2.35:1 to

finally rediscover the plain old 4:3. Offering only 16:10 didn't have a chance of impacting sales -

ThinkPads were one of the last to make the move, so there was basically no alternative. Moreover,

it's been pushed down to people's heads that widescreen is better, shinier, prettier, great for

movies, you do watch movies on the way, don't say you're not. Most people won't complain if you

carefully "explain" them that what you're throwing at them is better, especially if you support it

with a little lower price. I guess everyone can find an example around them.

Exactly. Agressive marketing from Samsung pushing things down. Go to the mall and see the grandpa's

and grandma's 'we want a widescreen, because [our elderly magazine] says it's better'. Yeah, heard

hands-on. That's indeed not market demand, like you rightly point out.

Just like the IraQ war: big-time fearmongering, fantasy-evidence* and so on and suddenly there

is a majority for the evil....

*Like "see more, do more"

Zender wrote:From the machines currently available on market, I very much like the T400s. Even

encountered one well spec'd in local store for a decent price, something I wouldn't believe I'll see

here in Europe. But the widescreen almost keeps me from even thinking about buying one. The problem

is that there's no choice.

Same here too. I read about the widescreen thing and thought 'it can't be so bad'. And then I bought

my T61 (1440x900). I still regret that I didn't wait 6 weeks for the 4:3 version (yeah, there was

plenty demand, even with the $350 premium and 6 weeks waiting, but no supply). The widescreens of the

X200 is holding me back now. Why would I even consider something like 800 vertical? I read from 800

vertical from MY PHONE.

Zender wrote:Actually, there are very few things that require more horizontal space than 4:3

offers. Web browsing, programming, 2D graphics, office work... most of this is better of with

vertical space (of course, except for the standard pro-widescreen argument: movies (agreed) and large

tables, where it might be _sometimes_ useful to have more width - I recommend each of these people to

try a machine with touchpad capable of two-finger horizontal scrolling).

Well, you know, those 40 pixels are holy. [/sarcasm]
I agree! I agree!

Who buys a laptop for movies in the first place? Watching movies on the crappy 14" screens? Even the

T22 that I use in church for projecting song texts has a better screen then my T61.

Zender wrote:That said, I do have widescreen desktop display, and quite like it. But that's

1920x1200 with DPI of 95. Enough space for working with more applications side by side. And still I

would have probably chosen 4:3 one, if it weren't twice the price (of not very cheap VA-based

LCD).

Yeah, here too. I couldn't find anything for a normal price with >1200 vertical that's 4:3. I now

have 2560x1600 on 30" with on each side a rotated 1600x1200. Desk is full horizontally... pleny of

space upwards.

bill bolton wrote:Talk is cheap, as everyone in technology product development learns quickly from the school of hard knocks (aka the market).

If there is a real and widespread consumer issue with lack of specific functionality, buyers simply stop consuming when there is no alternative.

They haven't stopped consuming widescreen laptops, so that in itself is adequate indication that it simply wasn't in fact a real and widespread buyer issue with widescreen formats.

Cheers,

Bill

Ah come on. The market comes with 16:8 only. What are you gonna do? Go back to paper?

These days the dumb masses control a lot. Like Congress, Senate, White House, Supreme Court, UN, IMF.
So do they control consumer demand. So if the educated 5% would stop buying it still wouldn't affect sales overall.

Besides that: this 5% HAS to replace old laptops being removed from circulation due to hardware failure.

Consumer demand doesn't drive the market. False marketing does. They do it all the time. The 16:10 campaign was misleading, and so was the 16:9 from the start on.

And yes: the migration from 16:10 to 16:9 is indeed going way too fast and no wonder: there is doping everywhere in the transition.

Or like Matt Kohut says:

Sadly, however, it won’t make 4:3 displays come back, no matter how loudly you scream.

And hell is coming loose even more:
Display Ratio Change (again)

jcvjcvjcvjcv wrote:Consumer demand doesn't drive the market.

That certainly puts your whole argument into clear perspective.

bill bolton wrote:
That certainly puts your whole argument into clear perspective.

You are free to react in any usefull way. If you just have nothing to say because you didn't think of that, can you just say so.

On this site:
Lenovo dropped AMD based PCs due to Intel deal in 2006

Just another example where consumer demand doesn't drive the market, but where higher powers conspire in order to push something down the throats of consumers.


But you probably still believe voters demand led to the Bailouts

My mother's office desktop features a Thinkvision Screen that has SXGA+ resolution. Though at first I was quite hesitant to buy the SXGA+ for argument, I instantly realized that it's way, way better than what current Thinkpad screens have to offer.

But for this thread I guess I have to support what Bill's been saying all the time. If majority of users are irked by the shift from SXGA+ to WXGA/WXGA+, then the Thinkpad line would have suffered a staggering loss long, long ago.

Just my o.o2 cents.

Peace to y'all.

bautista.ekonomista wrote: If majority of users are irked by the shift from SXGA+ to WXGA/WXGA+, then the Thinkpad line would have suffered a staggering loss long, long ago.

Your argument is flawed (which I've explained a couple of times earlier in the thread). The flaw is as follows:

Had the users been given a choice between a WXGA+ Thinkpad and a SXGA+ laptop from a different manufacturer, you could have judged how important/unimportant this issue is. Since no such choice was ever available (SXGA+ was gone from all laptops almost simultaneously), you don't have enough data to draw any conclusions.

With that said, I do not suggest that the majority was irked. Not by a long shot. The majority probably couldn't care less, and some don't even notice the difference.

Among those who do care, it's hard to say whether there are more advocates of 4:3 or of widescreen...

The point is that you get flawed stuff all the time when the market isn't driven by informed customers but by deceit, disinformation and lack of knowledge combined with strong marketing.

jcvjcvjcvjcv wrote:The point is that you get flawed stuff all the time when the market isn't driven by informed customers but by deceit, disinformation and lack of knowledge combined with strong marketing.

Informed customers may hold a wide range of views, not only views that align with yours.

Ok, then you have 5% of people that want widescreen, where from 99% are not in the ThinkPad customer's group, 10% that wants 4:3 and 85% that is NOT informed.

We see the same thing in politics over and over again. Every few years people come again to the conclusion that the Republicans are not to be trusted with foreign policy (the Neocons) to come later to the conclusions that they are sorry to have voted big-banking fascist democrats into office. The majority just never learns it seems....

Had widescreen not been promoted there would have been a honest discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of widescreen and 4:3. That discussion has been completely absent, partly because of false marketing.

Quicklite, i really understand your frustration!
Regarding the T43p - you could try the TP fan control software: http://sourceforge.net/projects/tp4xfancontrol/ . Running fan might not mean that the computer runs hot, maybe just that the fan controlling mechanism by stock is too coarse and has too high safety margin.
As you said, the T43p was top spec'ed, but if you use the ATI Catalyst Control Center you might also want to adjust the PowerPlay settings to "battey" mode, if you don't use the GPU power, there's no need to idle all parts of it at high clock speeds.

To me, after the T6x series and except the W700 (which is very innovative and ground-breaking) is nothing to speak of in terms of quality. It has the name "Thinkpad", but it would be nice if they pulled themselves together and installed proper LCDs in their laptops again.
It's really funny that most really want IPS of 4:3 back, when we have heard multiple times that IPS is not coming back (on non-tablets) and so aren't 4:3. Now the problem actually seems to be quite another: Why are Lenovo putting trash TN LCDs in some of their ThinkPad models? I don't mean that all TN panels are crap - because some of them are quite decent for TN (still no IPS though). An embarrasing 98:1* CR for a T400s is completely unheard of, and would be instantly beaten by any $300 supermarket laptop. This was a standard CR about 14 years ago when a transition from DSTN (~30:1 CR) to TFT occured. In Europe a T400s has a MSRP of about 2600 USD. Surely they could afford a $99 LCD instead of a $80 one.
* = http://www.notebookcheck.com/Test-Lenov ... 960.0.html

Or what about a T400 with CR of 108:1 ? http://www.notebookcheck.com/Test-Lenov ... 631.0.html

Quicklite is also quite right - it is wider than a 15" 4:3 notebook, so when people complained about how it is not very portable, i don't see why people wouldn't opt for the X200 or similar 12.1" WS laptops. I don't know about you, but when i stuff the laptop in my bag, all i care about is the longest side of it. I don't care if there's any space left next to it, because it isn't enough for it to be usable for anything, except a few pencils or pens perhaps. That's why i don't see the slightest improvement with widescreen laptops here, unless they become too small to comfortably use (netbooks).
Yes, you get WXGA instead of XGA on the lowest res. normal-sized laptops, but that is really only to expect - since pixels are square, would people accept a downgrade to ~1024x600 instead? The production process has become much cheaper than 4:3 was, and yet people use more and more apps on their screen at once. Think about the audience; they don't have space for WLM, facebook and email programs at once on an XGA LCD. In this regard, the extra resolution is nice, but also much expected.
If 4:3 lived on for more years, i think the standard would change to 1280x960 - but alas, this never happened. When 15" XGAs LCDs were out for desktops, these costed a couple of thousand $.

The whole point of saving costs with widescreen are a little odd to me:

A 15.4" panel costs.. what? $80? So the whole point about costs.... we talk about $10 on a $1600 machine. $10 saved for a crappy low-res screen...

I agree that the T400 is just too big for a 14" machine, especially with a decent sized battery (6-cell +)mainly due to that rediculously thick bezel. Surely they could find somewhere else to put the antennas? You could shave an inch off the width as far as I can tell and still have the same size screen. That's my biggest gripe about widescreen machines -- I've nothing against widescreen format, but why does the footprint have to be so much larger than 4:3 machines?

And like the OP, I was utterly underwhelmed when I received my T400 to replace a 4:3 T61. Some of that was due to the rubbish Vista OS, some was due to the Lenovo bloat, but most was due to the obvious drop in build quality. I've already replaced the T400 keyboard with a T61 keyboard to fix the ludicrous amount of flex, but still various parts don't quite fit right and the quality of the plastic used is shockingly bad. Oh, and don't even get me started on the CPU whine -- probably not Lenovo's fault, but annoying nonetheless.

I kept it, however, because what are the alternatives for the same price? A nice Fujitsu costs 50% more, for example, and I still don't trust Dell machines despite some good review recently. I just wish Lenovo would up the quality and the price slightly, because I'd be happy to pay $100 more to get a machine that's better put together.