Wide Screen Thinkpads

Message

Albert · #1 Post by **Albert** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 9:40 am

Do any of you know if now that almost every other laptop maker has come out with wide screen laptops, IBM will eventually follow suit?

Would you be interested in a 15.4" wuxga model?

#2 Post by **K. Eng** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 10:19 am

Widescreens are nice to look at, but they increase the footprint of the computer significantly. I personally my notebook computer to have the footprint of a sheet of paper or thereabouts.

edelrc · #3 Post by **edelrc** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 10:19 am

ThinkPads are business machines, so DVD format it is not a priority, no to mention that managers will be suspicious if employees started to ask for widescreen laptops...

However, the truth is that widescreen takes better advantage of the vision field we have. Therefore, spreadsheets, presentations, etc. should also be viewed on widescreens. Nevertheless, we won't be seen IBM bringing widescreen to business models in a near future. Projectors are still 4:3 and corporations are afraid to give bad image to their customers if their employees use widescreen laptops.

Kenn · #4 Post by **Kenn** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 5:15 pm

Also, most business users are still stuck in the "maximize Word and leave 50% of your usable area as grey border" paradigm, and widescreen makes that even worse. I sure wouldn't mind 1900 lines of vertical resolution though!

cheesecake · #5 Post by **cheesecake** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 6:32 pm

K. Eng wrote:Widescreens are nice to look at, but they increase the footprint of the computer significantly. I personally my notebook computer to have the footprint of a sheet of paper or thereabouts.

Yes, some of those widescreen laptops are huge. I agree that I prefer them paper-sized (I guess that's why they're called notebooks). But I think widescreens could help reduce footprints and weights. Why? Because they are more keyboard-shaped. I speculate that we'll see wristrests starting to disappear in the smaller/lighter laptops.

I would love to have a 15" widescreen thin & light Thinkpad, provided its footprint (total area) is as small as (and preferably lighter than) current 14" models.

Or even better: a 15" widescreen that can be rotated! Horizontal for DVDs and vertical for word processing - perfect!! Its just a matter of time ...

T23_Owner · #6 Post by **T23_Owner** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 10:27 pm

Boy I wish I had a 15.4in widescreen thinkpad. I do programming and a wider screen is perfect for that. It allows you to put more on a line of code without having to always scroll. If only I could run my programming apps on a powerbook. This is why a SXGA screen is essential to me. Not to mention photoshop. Those panes are always in the way.

5150 · #7 Post by **5150** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:06 am

HEY, what is taking soooooooo long?!? BRING THIS BABY TO MARKET NOW!!!

Oh, and while you're at it, bring it in the form of a 15.4" T Series. Believe me, I could care less that it has a bigger foot print!?! Yes, even non-business users like Thinkpads believe it or not! I swear, some of these posts (search on "widescreen") crack me up. Give me a break. If you posted a vote for a widescreen thinkpad on a site other than this one, you would get 98% want a widescreen and 2% want 4:3. GET WITH IT!

Anyway, bring it on IBM -- People deserve a choice and the choice of 2005 is a widescreen T series (yeah, not a A or R series either). Want to continue to lose more marketshare? Keep debating if it's a good idea.

Also, please bring us an internal DVD burner already! Thanks.

stgreek · #8 Post by **stgreek** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:17 am

5150 wrote:HEY, what is taking soooooooo long?!? BRING THIS BABY TO MARKET NOW!!!

Oh, and while you're at it, bring it in the form of a 15.4" T Series. Believe me, I could care less that it has a bigger foot print!?! Yes, even non-business users like Thinkpads believe it or not! I swear, some of these posts (search on "widescreen") crack me up. Give me a break. If you posted a vote for a widescreen thinkpad on a site other than this one, you would get 98% want a widescreen and 2% want 4:3. GET WITH IT!

Anyway, bring it on IBM -- People deserve a choice and the choice of 2005 is a widescreen T series (yeah, not a A or R series either). Want to continue to lose more marketshare? Keep debating if it's a good idea.

Also, please bring us an internal DVD burner already! Thanks.

First of all, double-posting on your first post is rude.

Second, Thinkpads are market leaders without copying anyone, all the others copy IBM.

Third, internal DVD burners on thinkpads do exist (I use one right now).

Fourth, laptops are ALL about footprint, if you want widescreen get a desktop + LCD monitor.

Fifth and last, if you want to troll, go to these "other sites", vote to raise the percentage to 99% and leave us alone. Please.

aleung · #9 Post by **aleung** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:39 am

well well well. When did you use your first widescreen laptop ? I have first gen Sony Picturebook when it come out from japan. It is cute and nice.. but after a while. You will love your 4:3 not widescreen. even the new widescreen is 1400x768 ? i do like to have 1400x1050 instead.

nello · #10 Post by **nello** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:47 am

I like 1024*768!

#11 Post by **BillMorrow** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:25 am

to those who want a WUXGA display "laptop"..
take a trip to best buy or circuit city and have a look at the wide display portable computers there..
those things are HUGE..!

take your thinkpad along and compare..

Elhabash · #12 Post by **Elhabash** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:39 am

Hmmm. I don't think a PowerBook is actually huge...
At the moment I have the opportunity to use two displays for working, and it really rocks!
If I had a widescreen, I would be closer to this type of real estate even on the field.

It just would give more room and flexibility to have SPSS and Excel open at the same time without just seeing a narrow slot of both.
Not to mention DVD viewing, of course!

On the other hand, I wouldn't accept anything less than 1400 pixels vertical anymore.

Ghostrider · #13 Post by **Ghostrider** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:19 am

Widescreen? NO THANKS!

A friend of mine bought a Toshiba M30 because of it's widescreen display.
When he bought it he told me "You can have more on the screen because of it's width - and it's perfect for DVDs!"
Now, after one year of use, he says: "If I'll buy a new notebook in the future I won't buy a widescreen again!"
The funny thing about widescreens is that they (often - nearly always) don't offer higher resolutions than 4:3 displays. You can get them with strange resolutions like 1280 x 768 or 1280 x 800 ... 20" widescreen iMac: 1680 x 1050.
Think about it just ONCE: You can get a T42p with a resolution of 1600*1200.
Where can you put more apps on: 1280*800 (Toshiba M30) or 1280*1024 or even 1600*1200?
The number of pixels is TWICE AS BIG on 1600*1200 compared to the widescreen 1280*800! (take a calculator and check it if you like! I did it...)
Even the 20" widescreen iMac has just 1680x1050 wich is less than 1600*1200!

Just because of the (weired) widescreen proportions you can't put MORE on the display. It's the other way around! The vertical resolution is cut to a low number and you will lose space on the upper and lower edges of the screen.
As long as you don't have resolutions HIGHER than 1600*1200 a widescreen will bring you the following: NOTHING - except for DVD-Playback.

Do you really buy a Notebook just to watch DVDs?
The friend I mentioned above has a >1m widescreen plasma TV at home and a 17" TFT as PC-Monitor. Why should he look a DVD on the smallest Display available? There is no reason.

Widescreen Displays offer a low resolution "per square inch". And I like the 1400*1050 of my ordered T42p because it offeres me 1.5 times the pixels (=space to place windows or whatever) a widescreen with 1280*800 would offer.

BTW: There are MANY programs that just don't use the extra space on the sides. As another poster said: Word with bigger not used borders on both sides does not make much sense. Yeah, you can zoom in but this won't help to have more text on the screen.
Games: MANY of them don't support widescreen resolutions. So you will have blurred interpolated images or black bars on the side...
What ever you do the low vertical resolution is the biggest problem of widescreen displays.

Skywing · #14 Post by **Skywing** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:21 am

widescreen laptops are generally meant for multimedia uses, IBM makes..... BUSINESS MACHINES! yes WUXGA is nice, but its huge, the only other option is 1280x800 and its still smaller than the current SXGA+ of the 14"u

Ghostrider · #15 Post by **Ghostrider** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:01 am

Skywing wrote:widescreen laptops are generally meant for multimedia uses, IBM makes..... BUSINESS MACHINES!

That's an additional factor. 100% agreed

admsteiner · #16 Post by **admsteiner** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:15 am

I'm curious why everyone is so caught up on a 15.4" wide screen thinkpad.

15.4" is not the only widescreen laptop size. The Dell Inspiron 700m is a widescreen as well (I mean widescreen as dimension).

I think it would be interesting. It could not increase the footprint of the machine all that much, what you gain in width you'd lose in depth/height (depending if it was opened or closed).

OTOH, I have a 14.1" SXGA and I usually have two word documents open side by side (although a widescreen would fit it better).

Thoughts on a widescreen in general, even if it's not a 15.4...

--Aadam

taphil · #17 Post by **taphil** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:57 am

My friend has a 700m. The screen is small and the vertical resolution is relatively low, so you end up scrolling a lot to view things. (The laptop also looks ugly.)

I think widescreen would be interesting only as a replacement or substitution for the 14" 1400x1050 if they make it 1600x1050. Otherwise, no other widescreen display has better resolution regardless of aspect ratio.

5150 · #18 Post by **5150** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:01 am

Here's the other one that cracks me up... everyone that has/wants a widescreen laptop uses it only for playing DVDs--right. LOL! We're not talking about a 17" widescreen mammoth from Toshiba here, we're talking about a 15.4" slim piece of art which only IBM could create. Contrary to belief, power users that want more screen real estate prefer the widescreeen. These power users are not playing DVDs (gasp!) but instead are probably doing more serious business and multi-tasking operations than you could ever muster unproductively on your 4:3 at resolutions that would require a magnifying glass. Most widescreen users have multiple windows opened all over the screen whereas typical 4:3 users most likely are running 1 or 2 apps... email and browser! Oh sorry, there are those few sophisticated 4:3 users that have figured out what a virtual desktop manager is and by the way, hats off to them!

Keep telling yourself that widescreen folks love it just for the DVDs... you'll really go far.

monty cantsin · #19 Post by **monty cantsin** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:26 am

5150 wrote:We're not talking about a 17" widescreen mammoth from Toshiba here, we're talking about a 15.4" slim piece of art which only IBM could create. Contrary to belief, power users that want more screen real estate prefer the widescreeen.

No, you're wrong. You won't get "more screen real estate", but in most cases less. Read Ghostrider's first contribution to this thread, it's pretty much on point. Widescreen dimensions might be practical for certain purposes, like watching/editing films and images, desktop publishing, programming etc., where it could be useful to organize windows and palettes side-by-side and you would not need a high vertical resolution, but personally, I don't want to see widescreen displays on IBM notebooks, either.

aleung · #20 Post by **aleung** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:52 am

me either. I don't want to see widescreen thinkpad. Let say DELL 700m. it is 1400x768 or 1280x768 ? oh yeah. you can open 2 document or anything side by side. Can my SXGA+ do the same ? oh. I got more vertical space also. i can still open 2 tiny windows at the bottom.

BTW: How many people actually know what is resolutions mean ? I like to use my T30 before more than my desktop. since my T30 got 1400x1050 in 14.1". I am using 19" sony 400ps on my desktop. even those 19" LCD panel. not much can go up to that resolutions.

Elhabash · #21 Post by **Elhabash** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:12 pm

A widescreen with the same amount of horizontal lines DOES have more room to organize the desktop. I'd prefer a 1860*1050 to a 1400*1050 any time...

Right now I am lucky to be able to have two monitors at my disposal, but this is not the normal case. As for the "business" user, some of them also like to have several windows open without having to scroll around all the time...

kristian · #22 Post by **kristian** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:40 pm

Well, one of the reasons why I even looked at a Thinkpad in the first place was that they were the only alternative without a wide screen...

In fact, judging by my own choice it is rather companies like Dell that are losing market share for not providing conservative users [like me...] with a proper tall screen alternative.

Please! The world has seen enough PR-hyped widescreens!

For my programming tasks with constitute 95% of what I do with the laptop, a 4:3 SXGA [or above] panel is just perfect for displaying two source files / windows side by side. Widescreen is not wide enough for 3 panes, yet you still lose a great deal of vertical space.

But, of course these things are a matter of subjective taste and everybody is entitled to have their own opinion about it...

Plinkerton · #23 Post by **Plinkerton** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:53 pm

I prefer this regular size also. I'm a college student, and definitely not a business user, but I much prefer not having widescreen. The shape and footprint is awesome, and it just seems to be more "normal".

I've always used 4:3, and I like it. I don't watch DVDs, and on the slim chance that I do, it's not like it looks horrible anyways. My TV isn't widescreen, so why should my laptop be?

Having pages side by side could be useful at some times, but for me, the ThinkPad is as close to perfection as anything out there at the moment.

aleung · #24 Post by **aleung** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:54 pm

Elhabash wrote:A widescreen with the same amount of horizontal lines DOES have more room to organize the desktop. I'd prefer a 1860*1050 to a 1400*1050 any time...

Right now I am lucky to be able to have two monitors at my disposal, but this is not the normal case. As for the "business" user, some of them also like to have several windows open without having to scroll around all the time...

if you are talking about 1860x1050. dell 8600 can do that.

Ghostrider · #25 Post by **Ghostrider** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:12 pm

aleung wrote:
Elhabash wrote:A widescreen with the same amount of horizontal lines DOES have more room to organize the desktop. I'd prefer a 1860*1050 to a 1400*1050 any time...

Right now I am lucky to be able to have two monitors at my disposal, but this is not the normal case. As for the "business" user, some of them also like to have several windows open without having to scroll around all the time...
if you are talking about 1860x1050. dell 8600 can do that.

Are you sure? If I look at DELL they can do 1680 x 1050 or 1920*1200... I think this was a TYPO. He mixed up 8 and 6 ...
So again: 1600*1200 at IBMs 15" would even produce the higher resolution than 1680*1050 and 1920*1200 may become a little bit tiny....

admsteiner · #26 Post by **admsteiner** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:45 pm

taphil wrote:My friend has a 700m. The screen is small and the vertical resolution is relatively low, so you end up scrolling a lot to view things. (The laptop also looks ugly.)

I think widescreen would be interesting only as a replacement or substitution for the 14" 1400x1050 if they make it 1600x1050. Otherwise, no other widescreen display has better resolution regardless of aspect ratio.

My point was that everyone was discussing a 15.4" widescreen when there are plenty of other sizes available as well. I happen to like the screen on the 700m (although I agree the laptop is pretty ugly).

I think that if IBM decided to, they could come up with a machine just as good as the regular ones with the 'standard' displays. Keeping in mind that only now (the last few months) have smaller and lighter widescreens really become available (before that you had the 15.4 and bigger behemoths) I wouldn't be surprised if we soon see IBM get in on it. Not because they're late on doing things, but Dell and the others are getting users used to the idea of a widescreen.

I'm not sure if I'd go for a widescreen. As I mentioned, I usually have two word documents (or other stuff) open side to side (vertically or horizontally) and I do love the 1400x1050 resolution.

What I'm really waiting for is the <drool> IBM Tablet PC...imagine something the size of a T42, reliability of a T42, but is also a tablet. </drool>
--Adam

Moroner · #27 Post by **Moroner** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:59 am

A 15" 4:3 offers you 108 sq in real estate, a 15.4" 16:10 widescreen offers you 83.2 sq in real estate. If you want the wide screen to offer the same space as the 4:3, you would need to use a 17.5" model with dimensions 13.15" x 8.2".

So as far as screen real estate is concerned, only a 17" wide screen model would be a proper alternative. Since with a 18" model, IBM could squeeze in a number keypad, it would be a nice addition. But for me, the 4:3 format still is the best compromise if you need to do both spread sheets and word processing.

Elhabash · #28 Post by **Elhabash** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:00 am

Oh, you old-fashioned die-hards!

if you are talking about 1860x1050. dell 8600 can do that.

But I don't want a Dell Laptop. That's just not an alternative.
I also love the 1400*1050. The only drawback is that any other display looks clinky...

And, btw, I was just making up some resolution to match 16:9 approximately. I was too lazy to calculate the correct dimensions.

aleung · #29 Post by **aleung** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:36 pm

it should be 1680 not 1860

sbc · #30 Post by **sbc** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:58 pm

I would like to see a wide screen thinkpad, maybe in the R or G series that was also Pen-M based.

However, I would much prefer a Thinkpad TabletPC

I do not think adding a widescreen model would infringe upon the users who prefer the small screen because they would continue to buy and support the X and T series. I think IBM would be one of the few that could have this size monitor at a reasonable size and weight in-respect to its' competitors. The possibility seems unlikely, but it is not an idea that would go unsold if offered to the public.

I still am waiting for the Thinkpad TabletPC

Wide Screen Thinkpads

Would you buy a Widescreen thinkpad?

Wide Screen Thinkpads

YOU BET I'D BUY A WIDESCREEN THINKPAD!!! 15.4" T Serie

Re: YOU BET I'D BUY A WIDESCREEN THINKPAD!!! 15.4" T S

No widescreen, PLEASE!

WIDESCREEN AND DVDs

Re: WIDESCREEN AND DVDs

Who is online