Thinkpads Forum

pianowizard wrote:I vehemently disagree, at least for the non-ultraportable laptops that are sold in the U.S. Since you mentioned Dell and since I am quite familiar with that brand, I will use it as an example. Before around 2004, the majority of their laptops (both consumer and business) had very flimsy construction. They sold well only because at that time most other laptop brands were significantly more expensive. The Inspiron 700m, which came out in 2004, was the earliest Dell laptop that I consider well-built, and the quality of Dell laptops has gotten even better since then, especially for the Latitude line -- most of the pre-D620 Latitudes were garbage! In the last couple years, Dell laptops did have a high failure rate, but that was largely due to the infamous Nvidia GPU issue.

I agree with you, pianowizard. Laptop reliability and durability (of almost all models and lines) has improved dramatically over the last decade or two.

First, the data supports this view. From PC World's reliability and service study:

Reliability and Service: Laptops

Laptops are, on the whole, more reliable than desktops, and gradually getting more reliable.

By Jeff Bertolucci, PCWorld Nov 28, 2010 8:00 pm

Overall, laptop reliability is improving gradually: 25.9 percent of respondents report experiencing at least one significant problem with their notebook, down from 30.9 percent last year and 31.8 percent two years ago.

Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/211402/r ... ptops.html

To add to this, in a previous life I worked in the quality department of a now defunct computer manufacturer, and around 1998 or so we did a major study which concluded that our average laptop required either a replacement or in-house service about once a year--compared to desktops, which were a third of this. Well, clearly there has been dramatic improvement in laptop reliability since then.

Finally, just anecdotally, I know that a laptop I bought in 1994 was fragile enough that a mere inch or so drop damaged the internals of the floppy drive and that I had to send it in. No machines are that fragile today.

pianowizard wrote:The Inspiron 700m, which came out in 2004, was the earliest Dell laptop that I consider well-built

I'd have to disagree on that one, at least the one I had. If you held it by the sides you could twist it into all kinds of different shapes. It was very plasticy as I recall, though it's been a while. Way back in the days Dells used to be great with very good support, but somewhere in the middle of the 00s they lost their way going all plastic and shipping support overseas. I'd agree the newer machines are better, but it seems most notebook makers are rushing to the middle, both consumer and business notebooks.

FredGarvin wrote:If you held it by the sides you could twist it into all kinds of different shapes.

That's the strangest thing I have ever heard! My Inspiron 700m was remarkably solid and remains one of my all-time favorite laptops. It's one of the few laptops that doesn't bend AT ALL when held by one of the front corners. There are at least several 700m fans on this forum. Are you sure you had a 700m? Perhaps you are thinking of the 600m, which I had for a short while and THAT was a poorly made laptop. Why don't you Google up some photos to make sure you remember the model correctly.

Well perhaps not into shapes, but twist I could. I am sure it was the 700m.

[quote="penartur"If lenovo had to produce LCD screens for their laptops by itself, even the worst such screens would cost times more than ones they're using now. You seem to underestimate the costs of setting up a LCD factory...[/quote]

I don't think it would be necessary to build an entire factory just to build a different size LCD... It would merely take what is called a "line". A line for producing a product with different specs is not a huge undertaking. For instance, the huge Whirlpool factory in Clyde (or Freemont) Ohio has several entirely different lines for washing machines and clothes dryers alone. There are lines that make Kenmore brand machines for Sears. The specs of Whirlpool and Kenmore machines are very different at several different points. In fact, the entire design is very different.

I live in the midst of what used to be the world's auto making capital. It was common to know auto workers who were off work for a few weeks (about two) as their plants retooled, which means anything from resetting up lines for new or totally different parts to entire car models. An Uncle of mine was the President of a major GM auto assembly plant near Niles, Ohio. When he took me into the plant to see the Vega assembly line, he pointed out the special floor bolts and other quick disconnects and skids and the train doors as he explained that the entire line can be loosened, placed on train cars, shipped to a plant in another state and ready to go in a week! In 1942, major Ypsilanti auto plants were quickly reset to build tanks and the B-25 bombers.

The major reason America won WWII is American industries & industrial engineers could do two things: Set up a line in incredibly short time and US line managers & workers could quickly acheive an amazing production rate. The US did not outfight or out tech Germany and Japan. The US buried them in mass production. We made one aircraft carrier
and a few major battleships a month. Outside the USA, No one thought it possible to build more than one carrier a year

Japanese, S. Korean, Taiwanese, & now Chinese industry got its training wheels from American industries and production engineers. Americans working from a home garage invented the desktop computer in 1975 & the laptop computer a few years later and made them here before taking production to Japan, Korea, Phillipeans, Spain, Taiwan and then China. I assure you if Notebook makers decided to market 4:3 LCD displays, they could do so in short order.
All that is needed is for the pencil pushing CEOs to give the go ahead.

--Bruised

@BruisedQuasar: US industrial strength of production was vital to winning the second world war. Might you have overlooked the fact that everyone else was involved ... some from 1939? Did America really win on its own, or is that Hollywood's version?

Back to topic:

If sufficient demand had been there would 4:3 have survived?

How many demanded 16:9 and how many demanded 4:3?

Please enlighten us.

I think the primary demand for 16:9 displays comes from the general consumer populace, who, for the most part will go ahead and shell out money for a newer generation of technology (*cough*apple*cough*) without at all comprehending why they should get that product beyond the fact that it's "better".

Next time you see an ad for 16:9 LCD monitor, look closely at some of the advertising for it, especially the stickers; you'll realize that they'll inflate the positive attributes of widescreen by implying that somehow tallscreens are inherently bad. Think about it for a sec and you'll realize they just wave their hands at the other side of the coin just so you, as a buyer, will be enticed into embracing this newer, supposedly better in every way, generation of technology.

(I had a specific ad in mind, but I can't find it at the moment.)

Actually, at other forums, I have seen a reasonable amount of resistance to the switch to 16:9--and this is from people who approved of the move to 16:10.

As to the public at large, I'm not so sure it is demand, as merely acquiescence to what the LCD makers prefer making. The advertising is convincing, and most people just don't see any harm.

For me, well, going from 1050 to 900 vertical pixels was a loss of about 14%. If my next notebook purchase will have only 768 vertical pixels, that is a loss of another 14% (or a combined loss of nearly 27% of the original). This is bound to impact a lot of people who use laptops for real work.

A question: Is there reason to think that when other screen technologies (say, OLED) reach fruition, there might be less reason for all manufacturers to maintain a uniform aspect ratio ? That is, might the manufacturing process be more flexible ? (Just asking.)

The thing is, those who oppose it are quite vocal on forums, and is dwarfed in number by the rest of the consumer world.
Sure, most people are complacent enough to let the LCD manufacturers impose widescreens on them, but that's what the LCD manufacturers need anyway.

Just as a curious note, if one were to use a 16:9 panel rotated to 90 degrees in a laptop while maintaining sufficient width for a full size keyboard, then one would have to use a LCD panel that is a whopping 58"* across the diagonal. Looks like that won't be feasible.

*Approximate; correct my math if I'm wrong, but at that size, it's HUGE.

Lenovo butters its bread in the corporate market. The consumer side is a small slice of the pie. The corporate people care very little about this, which is how you end up with something like the X100e. I myself don't really care about the shape so much, but the lack of good screens is a bigger letdown for me. It's while I'll be sticking with my tablet for the foreseeable future.

BruisedQuasar wrote:I don't think it would be necessary to build an entire factory just to build a different size LCD...

I said "If lenovo had to produce LCD screens for their laptops by itself".
Lenovo is not an LCD manufacturer. They should build an entire factory just to build some LCDs, independent of size.

Just to make things clear, there are two options:
1) Lenovo could ask current manufacturers to produce different sizes of LCDs. At least three manufacturers should start making 4:3 screens for lenovo to use these in their thinkpads (because lenovo won't use some part which is made only by one or two manufacturers and cannot be replaced with something else, and this is completely reasonable). This option was discussed above.
2) Lenovo could built its own LCD factory. This option was discussed above; particularly it was discussed in my post you've replied to.

anthean wrote:For me, well, going from 1050 to 900 vertical pixels was a loss of about 14%.

That's because you switched from 1400*1050 to 1440*900. What if you'd switched from 1400*1050 to 1680*1050 or 1920*1200? What about people who switched from 1024*768 to 1280*800?

For me, well, going from 1050 to 900 vertical pixels was a loss of about 14%. If my next notebook purchase will have only 768 vertical pixels, that is a loss of another 14% (or a combined loss of nearly 27% of the original).

If "768 vertical pixels" is about 16:9 screen, then it should be 1366*768. You're losing not only vertical pixels by moving from 1400*1050.
From the other hand, 1400*1050 means 1750 diagonal pixels. 1366*768 means 1567 diagonal pixels. So, while you're losing 27% of vertical resolution, you're losing 11% of DPI. You could as well switch from 2048*1536 to 1366*768 and say "that's all because they moved widescreen".

penartur wrote: And if we're talking about iPad - apple could allow itself to establish new LCD production line. There are 7 millions of ipads sold in 2010 (for 8 months), and forecasts are there will be 20 to 30 millions of these sold in 2011. That's for a single model.
Lenovo made 60 million thinkpads in 18 years. Currently, there is about ten models, with at least 5 different screen sizes (11", 12", 14", 15", 17"). Single thinkpad model production numbers are hardly comparable to that of ipad.

By the way, i found an info that apple ordered 35 millions of that 4:3 9.7" screens from LG, 15 millions from Samsung and 15 millions from ChiMei for year 2011, making it 65 millions total, for a single year. That's for a single screen model (4:3 9.7" IPS).
Lenovo only made 60 millions of ThinkPads up to date. Right now they're using at least 9 different screens of of 5 different sizes: 11", 12" TN and IPS, 14" WXGA and WXGA+, 15" HD, HD+ and FHD, 17".
So it is much easier for Apple to order some custom screen for their ipad than it is for lenovo. From the numbers i can conduct that there is roughly 1 million of each screen type sold in a year in thinkpads (making it 9 million in a year total, that is 15% of the total thinkpads amount released in the last 18 years). When you need only 1 million of screens, you cannot dictate your terms to manufacturers in a way as if you needed 65 millions of screens.

PS: And, by the way, it seems that actually screen size increased on about 1% when they moved from 16:10 to 16:9: T500 was 15.4", and T510 is 15.6".

anthean wrote:Actually, at other forums, I have seen a reasonable amount of resistance to the switch to 16:9--and this is from people who approved of the move to 16:10.

I was one of those who welcomed the move from 4:3 to 16:10 -- I used to argue with 4:3 proponents on this forum -- but I tend to oppose the migration from 16:10 to 16:9.

The 4:3 to 16:10 transition was mostly a good thing because:
1) Ultraportable laptops' resolution increased from 1024x768 to 1280x800. This resulted in a huge gain in horizontal space and a smaller but still useful gain vertically. (Some tablets had 12.1" 1400x1050, but conventional laptops didn't use this panel.) The shape of 16:10 screens was also more optimal for ultraportables, because they made the lid shorter so that the laptop could be used on an airplane more easily, and they were wider than 4:3 screens so that larger keyboards could be accommodated.
2) The highest laptop resolution increased from 1600x1200 to 1920x1200, so we had a huge gain horizontally and no gain/loss vertically. Of course I am aware that some 15.0" 4:3 laptops could be modded with the 2048x1536 IPS panel, but I didn't like that panel's insanely high pixel density.

But I said 4:3 to 16:10 was *mostly* a good thing because there was a downside as well: 14.1" laptops were downgraded from 1400x1050 to 1440x900, a very significiant reduction IMO. In terms of total pixel count, 1440x900 is even less than 1280x1024. I am not a fan of 1440x900 and have had only one laptop with that resolution, for only a week or so (a Z61t).

For the switch from 16:10 to 16:9, there are four things that I don't like:
1) The biggest problem is that the max laptop resolution dropped from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 even for humongous 18.4" laptops;
2) 20" desktop LCDs went from 1680x1050 to 1600x900 while the amount of desk space that they take up went up slightly (16:10 20" is 16.96" wide whereas 16:9 20" is 17.43" wide). And don't forget, 1680x1050 was already a downgrade from the 20" 4:3 monitors' 1600x1200;
3) The reduction in resolution was even worse for 19" desktop LCDs. The highest 19" 16:10 resolution was 1680x1050, e.g. my Acer X193W+BD. But as far as I know, all 19" (actually 18.5") 16:9 desktop LCDs are only 1366x768, and these 18.5" monitors actually take up 0.02" more desk space than 19" 16:10 ones. Heck, even 17" 16:10 desktop monitors had more pixels than 18.5" 16:9, i.e. 1440x900.
4) On ultraportables, even though 1366x768 gives 2.45% more total real estate than 1280x800, I prefer the latter because I can view more lines of text.

On the other hand, with the migration to 16:9:
1) 13" - 14" laptops can now have 1600x900 instead of only 1440x900. The Sony Z Series even has 1920x1080 on a 13.1" screen, although its pixel density of 168 DPI is way too much for most people;
2) 22" desktop LCDs (21.5" to be exact) now have 1920x1080 instead of only 1680x1050;
3) 2048x1152 is a fanTAStic resolution for 23" desktop LCDs -- I like my Dell sp2309w so very much! Side-by-side viewing is even better than on a 1920x1200 screen, and 1152 pixel rows is almost as good as 1200.

penartur wrote:PS: And, by the way, it seems that actually screen size increased on about 1% when they moved from 16:10 to 16:9: T500 was 15.4", and T510 is 15.6".

Surface area comparison:

15.0" (4:3) = 108.00 square inches
15.4" (16:10) = 106.59 square inches
15.6" (16:9) = 103.99 square inches