Thinkpads Forum

Some of Lenovo's Australian resellers are puting up on on their web sites the basics specs for a few pre-configured T410/T510 and W510 models....

2518 CAM LENOVO T410 I5-520M 2GB, 320GB, 14.1"WXGA, DVDRW, 5700MHD, BGN, XPP(W7), 3YR
2518 CGM LENOVO T410 I5-540M 4GB(2X2), 320GB, 14.1"WXGA+, DVDRW, NVS3100M-256MB, AGN, W7, 3YR

4314 2ZM LENOVO T510 I5-520M 2GB, 320GB, 15.6"HD, DVDRW, 5700MHD, AGN, W7, 3YR
4314 34M LENOVO T510 I7-620M 4GB(2X2), 320GB, 15.6"HD+, DVDRW, NVS3100M-512MB, AGN, W7, 3YR

4319 2KM LENOVO W510 I7-720QM 4GB(2X2) 320GB 15.6"HD+ DVDRW NVS3100M-1GB AGN W7 3YR
4319 2LM LENOVO W510 I7-820QM 4GB(2X2) 320GB 15.6"FHD DVDRW NVS3100M-1GB AGN W7 3YR

Cheers,

Bill B.

Looks like a change back to Nvidia, not too happy about that as a personal preference.

Are they thinner than the previous T/W 500 ?

OMG, the 15" models are 16:9 now. Say goodbye to 1200 vertical resolution forever.

dr_st wrote:OMG, the 15" models are 16:9 now. Say goodbye to 1200 vertical resolution forever.

Amen. I have a T41p with a nice "tall" screen. When I ordered my next ThinkPad I had to move up to a 15-incher with high resolution to get the same vertical real estate. I'd love to see some of these business-focused notebook makers offer at least one model with a real screen...not one designed for watching movies.

nietsloh wrote:When I ordered my next ThinkPad I had to move up to a 15-incher with high resolution to get the same vertical real estate.

Yep. And now you will have to move to a 15" FullHD W510 to get the same vertical resolution that was available on a lowly 14" T41, since the T510 is going to be limited to HD+ (1600x900).

Time to get a maxed out W500 with WUXGA screen (man I've been dying to get one of those ridiculously high res panels) I know I know is not IPS.

16:9? NOOOOOO!
Eugh. I miss 4:3 so much while working on documents. 16:10 is irritating but livable, but 16:9? That's another 100 pixels they're throwing out the window.

I just don't get it. Everyone I know who uses their laptop to do "real" work just HATES widescreens. 16x10 is bad enough, but 16x9 is downright horrible for writing code and documents. You'd think with Thinkpad being THE business laptop, Lenovo would be the last company in the world to force customers down that path.

What's next; shiny finishes, glossy screens, mushy backlit keyboards, and glowing logos? That crap sells vapid, image conscious, 20-year olds (and marketing wonks, but I repeat myself). Since when has that been been the Thinkpad demographic.

I was worried about buying a W500 just a month before the new 510s came out, but now I'm seriously glad I pulled that trigger when I did.

The sad thing is that as far as I know Lenovo can't do anything here because what kind of screend are we going to have is largely dictated by the screen manufacturers. If nobody manufactures 4:3 screens there are no ThinkPads with those LCDs. As a matter of fact right now I have a T61 with 14" 4:3 SXGA+. Good forma factor and perfect resolution. However I am far from being happy with the image quality as the picture is too grainy and contrast is quite poor. This particular LCD is manufactured back in 2005 and it is used an a laptop which is manufactured on 2008. In other words, it is ancient technology. In fact this is the only thing that I really don't like in my T61. I am glad that recently I bought a T500 with WSXGA+. And as far as I can tell from the information about T510 I'll have no regrets about not waiting for opportunity to buy one of them.

Ok, it is not the case that Lenovo can not do something about it.

Matt Kohut on his blog was responding to users that in case, he gets a pre-order of 15000 notebooks, Lenovo would be able to get the perfect 4:3 screen everybody wants.
Don't know whats going on, but I do not find the original quote of Matt any more. But if you look at this blog entry http://lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/?p=220, you see many people responding to it.
I would not be surprised if Lenovo pulled Matt's comment.

I think 15000 is a ridiculous low number to get a decent screen. Are they really telling us that they can not sell 15000 decent notebooks? IBM alone has hundreds of thousands of these "black bricks".

In my opinion they just do not want to take the risk.

Wolfgang

The comment is still there, right at the top of the page, before last paragraph.

And it's not quite that he said "if we get 15000 orders, we'll bring IPS back". It's just that some people's wishful thinking made it look that.

Really all that was said is (direct quote):

In order to provide a high end IPS display option, we'd need well over 15,000 confirmed orders to make it even worth considering.

ScotchDiver wrote:shiny finishes, glossy screens, mushy backlit keyboards, and glowing logos

I think they've already got three of the four.

Flame me if you must but I think the 15.6" screen is the one where 16:9 actually makes sense. 1080 vertical is only 10% less than the holy 1200, and at about 120 ppi text is readable by those of us with mediocre vision.

I'm relieved to see that Lenovo seems to be sticking with taller screens on the 14" models, though.

Oh,come on. Lenovo is catering to the home market .They expect that they will be their single largest user base.
I am from a friendly neighbour and i expect to get better prices.Who cares about the # of dots on the screen or the surface area of their lcd.
Give me a led (not a led backlit) anytime.I expect we will get the new segate HD's (ultra slim) with them. N o?.

fmyhr wrote:I'm relieved to see that Lenovo seems to be sticking with taller screens on the 14" models, though.

Only as long as these are available in sufficient quantities. My guess - one more generation and that would be 16:9 too.

ScotchDiver wrote:I just don't get it. Everyone I know who uses their laptop to do "real" work just HATES widescreens. 16x10 is bad enough, but 16x9 is downright horrible for writing code and documents. You'd think with Thinkpad being THE business laptop, Lenovo would be the last company in the world to force customers down that path.

What's next; shiny finishes, glossy screens, mushy backlit keyboards, and glowing logos? That crap sells vapid, image conscious, 20-year olds (and marketing wonks, but I repeat myself). Since when has that been been the Thinkpad demographic.

I was worried about buying a W500 just a month before the new 510s came out, but now I'm seriously glad I pulled that trigger when I did.

But how do you really feal about Apple? By the way, only the RICH 20-year-olds get them, most Apples I see are in the hands of people in their 30s and 40s, including my own.

as long as Lenovo can deliver a panel with decent contrast ratio and brightness i'd be happy with any aspect ratio. Why can't they source the same panel models that apple uses for their macbook pros or sony uses for their FW, SR and Z series.

asiafish wrote:But how do you really feal about Apple? By the way, only the RICH 20-year-olds get them, most Apples I see are in the hands of people in their 30s and 40s, including my own.

Actually, believe it or not, I wasn't thinking about the Mac when I wrote this (at least, not a Mac in particular). I know several engineers who just love Apple hardware. From what I hear, it's some of the best built stuff out there.

Regardless, the point I was making isn't about Apple or any other specific builder. My complaint is that I don't want MY favorite hardware manufacturer stooping to the same gimmicks and snake oil that some "lesser" companies use to appeal to shallow customers. It just degrades the brand.

Take cars for example. I have no problem with most auto makers building cars with a pseudo-sporty image. As a BMW owner though, I would be quite concerned if the next "ultimate driving machine" was an anemic 1.6l coupe with flame effects, sloppy steering, a 24" spoiler, 4" bleating exhaust tips, and undercarriage glow-lights.

I pay a premium for Thinkpads because I think of them as the BMW of the laptop world. High performance, top notch engineering, and built to last. By going to 16x9 screens, Lenovo is caving to mass market peer pressure. It’s like BMW boosting power steering to reduce drivers' effort, thus losing their signature road feel (I.E. floating down the road like a Cadillac). It may appeal to a wider audience that way, but that doesn't mean they will sell more product. People who buy BMWs do so precisely because they DON'T drive like most other cars on the road.

I pay a premium for Thinkpads because I think of them as the BMW of the laptop world. High performance, top notch engineering, and built to last. By going to 16x9 screens, Lenovo is caving to mass market peer pressure. It’s like BMW boosting power steering to reduce drivers' effort, thus losing their signature road feel (I.E. floating down the road like a Cadillac). It may appeal to a wider audience that way, but that doesn't mean they will sell more product. People who buy BMWs do so precisely because they DON'T drive like most other cars on the road.

Well said!

BMW design the major components of their cars specifically for their cars, whereas a specific laptop manufacturer does not spec and design the components that go into their laptops, they get to choose from what's available from their component suppliers. If one manufacturer wants something different to the norm, it's going to be astronomically expensive.

what is all this about BMW...
Ony Germans use them as regular driving vehicles.
Similarly Lenovo wants to cater to a different market.Chinese,Indians...
They feel that all those who already have BMW quality Laptops do not have
more surplus for what they want to make lots of money from...
So they will sell more,Much cheaper and alsomake much more money from
service charges (tobe paid for seperately for,of course)...
They have learnt all this from IBMof course. Give a machine free but under the
condition that the foolish buyers signs a unlimited period monopoly service contract
from them..

Interesting RE: 16:9 aspect ratio displays. I wonder if there will ever be a 2560x1440 (QHD? 1280x2=2560, 720X2=1440, similar to the Apple iMac 27 inch) in the workstation replacement model?

I saw some preliminary benchmarks on the i7-820QM. It looks like a beast of a microprocessor.

Hopefully we'll start to see some specs on the X210 as well!

Aroc wrote:Interesting RE: 16:9 aspect ratio displays. I wonder if there will ever be a 2560x1440 (QHD? 1280x2=2560, 720X2=1440, similar to the Apple iMac 27 inch) in the workstation replacement model?

I doubt it, because 2560x1440 is way too high for laptops. In fact, it's a bit too high even for a 27" LCD, giving you a pixel density of 108.79 DPI which is denser than all other currently available desktop LCDs. But 2048x1152 (which I believe is found only in 23" LCDs right now) would be nice for desktop replacement laptops.

It is interesting to compare how the gradual change of aspect ratios (4:3/5:4 --> 8:5 --> 16:9) has affected resolutions. Turns out some screen sizes benefited, while others lost. Let's check the common sizes.

12" mainstream: 1024x768-->1280x800
No 16:9 version yet as far as I can see, and the 1400x1050 available for some tablets is clearly an exception to the rule. 99% of 12" 4:3 displays were XGA.

13/14/15" mainstream: 1024x768-->1280x800-->1366x768
In the mainstream sector, the introduction of widescreen clearly helped the overall screen space on 13/14/15" monitors, going from XGA to WXGA. The new 16:9 WXGA (also known as HD) keeps the overall space almost the same, adding some horizontal and removing some vertical.

13" high-end: 1280x1024-->1400x900
The only examples of non-standard resolution for 13" laptops that I can think of are the SXGA (5:4) 13.7" 770X and the X30x series. Overall real estate is essentially the same, with one having more depth, and one more width.

14" high-end: 1400x1050-->1440x900-->1600x900
Lots of people were complaining about the loss of vertical resolution when 14" high-end laptops moved to widescreen. Now that some 16:9 models offer 1600x900 (HD+), I have a feeling the complaints won't stop, cause 900 vertical pixels are still somewhat low, but at least there is more width. Still, 1400x1050 is the overall winner with 2% more pixels over HD+, and what is perceived by many as a more useful form factor, probably the most popular laptop resolution overall.

15" high-end: 1600x1200-->1920x1200-->1920x1080
Leaving aside the rare QXGA IPS IDTech panel, UXGA was the maximum before widescreen, and if you aren't bothered by tiny pixels, WUXGA on 15.4" wide clearly took it one step further, offering the highest available resolution on laptops to date. With the move to 16:9 we lose some vertical space, which no doubt some will find annoying, even compare to UXGA, despite overall larger space.

17" high-end laptops: 1920x1200 -->1920x1080
17" was introduced to the laptop market as widescreen (would be too tall otherwise), and here, like with 15.4", the move to 16:9 caused a loss of 10% vertical screen real estate.

17" desktop monitors: 1280x1024 --> 1280x720
Widescreen 17" monitors were clearly a sad joke losing 30% overall space. Barely manufactured anymore.

19": 1280x1024-->1440x900-->1366x768
With the transition to widescreen, 19" monitors lost some depth and gained width, overall keeping the pixel count almost the same (SXGA is 1% more than WXGA+), but the new 16:9 monitors are really pathetic, losing resolution in both dimensions.

20": 1600x1200-->1680x1050-->1600x900
Same story repeats with 20", even worse. While one could accept the loss of vertical resolution on the first transition to widescreen, since at least one got a bit more horizontal space - the new 16:9 panels offer less on both counts.

One should keep in mind though that the average mainstream desktop screen size does increase with time. 3 years ago, 19" may have been the standard, now everybody and his dog has 22" or more. 19-20" models are relegated to the low-end, and manufacturers don't feel the need to invest in quality panels or high resolutions. And few people will complain, too.

22": 1680x1050-->1920x1080
The only screen size which actually gained with transition from 8:5 to 16:9. All the new screens are being offered with FullHD, which is nice, and beats WSXGA+ in both dimensions.

23-24": 1920x1200-->1920x1080
Like with 17" laptops, we lose 10% vertical real estate here. Which is kind of sad, since 24" monitors are also slowly creeping into the mainstream. So far, at least most high-end monitors using IPS/PVA panels offer full WUXGA, but I wouldn't count on this trend continuing for much longer...

dr_st wrote:It is interesting to compare how the gradual change of aspect ratios (4:3/5:4 --> 8:5 --> 16:9) has affected resolutions. Turns out some screen sizes benefited, while others lost.

dr_st, that's a nice summary and it reminds me of a comparison I posted a while back. Your post got me to wonder how the shift in aspect ratio has affected pixel densities. So, I averaged the pixel densities of all the laptop LCDs that I know of and the result was quite interesting:

4:3 & 5:4 avg (excluding the unusual 15.0" QXGA) = 114.80 DPI

16:10 avg = 121.42 DPI

16:9 avg = 122.42 DPI

As you can see, as the screens became wider, pixel density became higher on the average, perhaps in an attempt to compensate for the loss in vertical real estate.

However, when I do the same calculation for desktop LCDs, I don't see a similar trend:

4:3 & 5:4 avg (excluding the unusual 20.8" QXGA screen) = 93.57 DPI

16:10 avg (excluding the unusual T220/T221) = 93.79 DPI

16:9 avg = 93.37 DPI

This lack of a compensatory increase in DPI may be because the manufacturers assume that people who need more pixel rows can simply get a larger monitor and/or rotate the monitor into portrait mode. This assumption is reasonable, since weight isn't an issue here and most people probably have plenty of desk space. And many desktop monitors can be rotated 90 degrees, an advantage that laptop screens obviously don't have.

Some official (sort-of) specs:

W510 gets USB 3.0, NVidia graphics, 16GB RAM (4 slots), optional multi-touch screen, color calibrator ala W700. T510/W510 get new battery design and can charge a device on USB even when the computer is off (but plugged in).

No mention of screen aspect ratio.

http://hothardware.com/News/Lenovo-Refr ... -And-More/

Good find, also notable, "The T410s now comes with Nvidia switchable graphics with 512 MB of VRAM", and the fact the article is dated Jan 4th !

Edit : Another link, http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/cont ... owcase^%22

In a post by Matt Kohut it appears as though they'll all be using LED backlights.

Going to miss the Ultrabay Battery I never used.

here is a picture of the W510: http://lenovo.tekgroupweb.com/photo_dis ... to_id=5192

I considered the W510, but I just think this machine is massive, look at the speakers left and right of the keyboard. This looks like a old HP 17" notebook to me.
The direction lenovo is heading is really disappointing in my opinion.
A few years ago you could get the highest possible performance in a really nice package, e.g. T40p ... then came the 15 inch with T60p, still ok from a size perspective, but already much bigger.
Now you have to get a heavy brick to get the max performance. And I do not understand why.
E.g. you could take 2x 1.8" ssd's and the old and good ultra slim dvd device easily in a T60p format.
Now they are using the 12mm dvd drive in the new T5x except T410s. And what is the explanation? Because the industry goes there. What a weak excuse all the time.
I call this a big waste of space and do not really like it. Yep, I know I could buy the T410s, but I guess you will not get the fastest processor with it.
And I am not even starting again with this display format stuff ...

On the other side, if you like a big workstation replacement, then this W510 might be a great machine.
Just think they should relabel their machine. T410s -> T410, T410 -> T410F, W510 -> W510SF (F for Fat and SF for Super Fat)

Wolfgang