T440s First Impressions

[exTPfan]

Lenovo is suffering from the Summer Blockbuster Syndrome. More people go to the movies in the summer, so it's the best time to release a new movie. Except that now everyone releases their movies in the summer, so it's actually the worst time. BUT THEY STILL DO IT.

Most people want a laptop optimized for viewing videos (short screen, minimal keyboard), so it's best to aim your laptop for them. Except that EVERYONE does that. Now there about 300 laptop models all designed for the same people (short screen, minimal keyboard). Does anyone doubt that if Lenovo released a laptop designed for real work (tall screen, old style seven-row keyboard) it would sell more of them than the 301st copy of all the other laptops on the market?

[cb474]

I weighted it without external battery1.432 kilograms which is
3.157 pounds. With M.2 hdd you could safe more than 70g I guess.

I think this is a meaningless measurement. Who's going to go around with a gaping hole in the back of their notebook? If I weighed the X301 without the battery, I'm sure it's weight would be well under 3 lbs. But who cares?

In addition, the two standard batteries in the T440s are basically equivalent to the 6 cell battery in the X301 (in terms of Wh). Nonetheless the X301 with the heavier 6 cell battery is still lighter than the T440s, with both of it's standard batteries. On top of that, the X301 has the ultrabay with the optical drive.

You can't strip down the T440s, take out batteries, remove components, remove the standard hard drive, etc., and then declare it just as light as the X301, because of course we could start stipping things out of the X301 also. The point is that the X301 is lighter with more components in it than the T440s has. The X301 was just a better design, no amout of stripping components and fiddling around will change that.

And I want those other components. I want the batteries. I want to have two hard drives in my machine. Once I do all of that, the T440s is heavier than the X301 for an equivalent configuration (as equivalent as possible). That is the honest comparison.

*

The room of the DVD drive is needed and used:
- T440s has 2.5" HDDs/SSD, the X301 uses 1.8" SSDs
- 2 batteries are standard on the T440s, it has more battery capacity than the X301 (in their standard configs, if you compare the X301 with Ultrabay-battery vs. T440s with 6-cell battery, the T440s also wins, 67 Wh vs. 95 Wh)
- The X301 does not have a DockingPort, the T440s has one.

It's fair to point out that the T440s has a 2.5" drive, instead of 1.8."

The two batteries are basically equivalent to one battery split into two smaller ones, so although this does allow for the handy hot swap feature, it doesn't really explain anything about the weight deficit of the T440s, in comparison to the X301. In their standard configs the T440s does have more battery capacity than the X301, but then the X301 is much lighter; add the 6 cell battery to the X301 and they basically have the same capacity, but the X301 is still significantly lighter (despite also having the ultrabay).

The T440s with the 6 cell battery does not give you a total of 95 Wh, as you claim, that's incorrect; the 6 cell for the T440s gives you 47 Wh, plus the 23.5 Wh internal 3 cell battery. So with the 6 cell battery you get a total of 70.5 Wh on the T440s, compared to 43 Wh for the 6 cell on the X301 plus 24 Wh for the 3 cell on the X301 giving you a total of 67 Wh which is basically the same. So there's really no difference between the T440s and the X301, in terms of potential battery capacity. Any battery life benefit on the T440s is entirely due to Haswell obviously being a signficant upgrade over the motherboard/cpu combo in the X301 (and therefore entirely due to Intel, not Lenovo). [Correction: I guess you're right about the 72 Wh battery. In any case, I won't argue that the T440s isn't going to get better battery life, but as I say, that's not because of batteries--you can always carry around extra batteries for any computer--it's because of Haswell. That's why the X301 with an upgraded motherboard and cpu would be a better notebook.]

What all this adds up to (as I say above) is that for any equivalent configuration of the X301 and T440s, the X301 is significantly lighter, while having more features. I don't agree with your assertion that the space of the missing ultrabay in the T440s is "needed and used," since all you can point to that one gets is a 2.5" inch drive instead of a 1.8" drive. That does not account for the space difference or the weight difference.

The reality is that the T440s is heavier, (slightly) larger, and has less features. You gain basically nothing for the extra space and weight and loss of ultrabay. (Except the 2.5" drive, although I have a 2.5" drive in my ultrabay, so I don't really actually see the difference. It's possible to have a 2.5" drive and a 1.8" drive in the X301 at the same time and it's still smaller and lighter).

[ajkula66]

Does anyone doubt that if Lenovo released a laptop designed for real work (tall screen, old style seven-row keyboard) it would sell more of them than the 301st copy of all the other laptops on the market?

Especially for the fact that their "house brand" already counts for at least 50 out of those 300...

[wvancamp]

I believe the larger (6 cell, model 68+) battery provides more energy than mentioned above. The Lenovo spec for it is:

ThinkPad Battery 68+ (6 cell) (0C52862)

Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) technology
6 cell system battery
Over-discharge protection to prolong the life of the battery
Battery energy (Watt-hours): 72Wh
Battery Safeguard chip authenticates with Lenovo systems

Performance specifications:

Battery energy (Watt-hours): 72Wh
Battery capacity (Amp-hour): 6.6 Ah
Output voltage: 10.8 V dc (nominal)

[AnakiMana]

What about the price difference between the X301 and T440s? Five years ago, a review on CNET said that the base price was $2,605 and configured, their unit was $2,920. The T440s starts at $1,149. Why are we comparing these two models to each other?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[cb474]

I believe the larger (6 cell, model 68+) battery provides more energy than mentioned above. The Lenovo spec for it is:

ThinkPad Battery 68+ (6 cell) (0C52862)

Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) technology
6 cell system battery
Over-discharge protection to prolong the life of the battery
Battery energy (Watt-hours): 72Wh
Battery Safeguard chip authenticates with Lenovo systems

Performance specifications:

Battery energy (Watt-hours): 72Wh
Battery capacity (Amp-hour): 6.6 Ah
Output voltage: 10.8 V dc (nominal)

Hmm, I guess perhaps you're right. It looks like there are two different 6 cell batteries, one with 48 Wh and one with 72 Wh. I wonder how much it weighs with the larger 72 Wh battery?

[ssd_thinkpad]

The x301 was the best of the best at that time, I will not argue about that. And it felt very lightweight. Was it a successful product for Lenovo? Like the (in)official competitor Macbook Air from Apple? I weighted the T440s here, because I want to provide as much information as possible. Without the external battery, the T440s only runs on the internal one, the 3 cell internal battery most likely holds longer than the 3 cell external battery of the x301. The measurement was done at an industrial scale, I won't go through the trouble to remove my internal battery and weight it again. As for how a notebook looks: I removed the T520 ultrabay to remove weight, and people also asked me what happened with the notebook. I am not out there to impress people, but to work.

Who's the successor of the x301? Maybe it is the X1 Carbon without the docking connector, or the T440s. I think we could also find 14 inch models with high quality display in the 1.200 USD price range and discuss whether they are better or worse than the T440s. After having used a Panasonic Let's Note, and then the T520, I am very impressed. I wrote reviews about other models I used like the T60 IPS UXGA with Intel GPU on SLC SSD (which costs 500 Euro alone that time) running without fan most of the time which was by the way also a great machine.

I paid around 1.000 USD for the new T440s with three years warranty, compared to the original new price of the x301 you can see there is a huge gap. Everytime I use the T440s I am happy with the feel and its display and keyboard. It's the first time I had that. I was very impressed by the x301, but only the display made me return it the same day.

[cb474]

I'm not saying the T440s is not a nice notebook, for what it is. Or the X1 Carbon. I'm just saying that objectively they do not seem to be designed to the same standard of the X301. So I would not say that the X301 was just the best at the time. Other than the outdated motherboard/cpu, it seems to in fact be a better design that what is available now. And I'm interested in understanding why.

I thinking taking the extenral battery out of the T440s is perfectly fine as a practical solution, to lighten it up, if you don't mind having a gaping hole in the back of your notebook (though I do think there is some increased risk to dust getting in the machine and perhaps to the device's general durability). I just think that taking out the battery and then comparing a T440s with parts removed to an X301 with all of it's parts is not an honest objective way to compare the two machines.

If one wants to understand the weight difference one has to consider how the complete X301 manages to have more features built into it, yet be significantly lighter than the complete T440s (and the same weight as the X1 Carbon, which has even less features).

I think the cost comparison is also not valid. All Thinkpads (and all notebooks in general) have gotten significantly less expensive since the X301 came out. The X301 was one of the first notebooks to use carbon fiber. Now many lightweight notebooks use this material and cost much less. I'm sure the X301 could be produced today for far less than it cost at the time. So the difference in price has nothing to do with the X301 somehow being an intrinsically more expensive design. It just has to do with the cost of being a cutting edge device before economies of scale can kick in.

So I think if one is going to be honest, one has to admit that the T440s and the X1 Carbon do not represent the full extent of what is possible design-wise. (For example, the Vaio Pro 13 only weighs 2.34 lbs, with a touch screen, and has basically the same features as the X1 Carbon at 3 lbs.) From a design and engineering perspective the T440s and X1 Carbon seem to be inferior to the X301. This is true regardless of the costs. I'm interested in understanding why. How does the X301 fit more features into a lighter overall notebook? Why isn't Lenovo still doing this? What would it cost to produce an X301 with a 14" screen and Haswell? Etc.

[ssd_thinkpad]

It is fair to compare the x301 to a T340s with 13 inch TN lower resolution display and its docking connector removed. TN displays are usually lighter than IPS, VA displays, and the more pixels, usually the heavier are displays, too.

If you like, you can compare the x301 display with the display of the T440s. The problem is not the 13 inch TN display with its inferior viewing angles. But the extremely low Pulse WM LED backlight. That was the reason why I returned it immediately. The T440s seems to have either a very high PWM frequency like Apple in its most recent products, or it may even use constant current technology to provide an even backlight without flickering as Dell is starting to use it and Google did it with their first Nexus release (the second "retina" model flickers again and is in that regard inferior to its predecessor).

[ThinkRob]

Other than the outdated motherboard/cpu, it seems to in fact be a better design that what is available now.

Not counting the display. The display was *bad*, and I'm usually pretty forgiving on that front. In fact, if it wasn't as bad as it was I'd probably still have mine.

Even the widely-panned displays of the T410 and T420 were *vastly* better than the X30x's panels. It wasn't a question of backlighting either: the contrast ratio and viewing angles were some of the worst that I've seen (with one exception.)

[cb474]

Other than the outdated motherboard/cpu, it seems to in fact be a better design that what is available now.

Not counting the display. The display was *bad*, and I'm usually pretty forgiving on that front. In fact, if it wasn't as bad as it was I'd probably still have mine.

Yes, the display is not the best (although honestly for me, even watching movies, it's prefectly fine). But I put that in the category of things like the motherboard/cpu that could simply be upgraded within the same design. It even seems there's a fair amount of wasted bezel space on the X301 and you could get a 14" screen in, perhaps. In any case, I don't think that speaks to an inferior design on the X301, just an inferior choice of parts. (I guess they had to save money somewhere!)

*

It is fair to compare the x301 to a T340s with 13 inch TN lower resolution display and its docking connector removed. TN displays are usually lighter than IPS, VA displays, and the more pixels, usually the heavier are displays, too.

As you see above, I'm not going to argue that the X301 had a great display. Although I'm surprised people find it so insufferable they can't live with it. Hey, it's better than the dispaly on my T61 (in terms of brightness and color quality). Anyway, I have no trouble living with it and never think I wish it had a better display. But I freely admit that there are much better displays out there.

That said, I don't agree about the X301 versus hypothetical T340s. For one thing, the display on the T440s is 16:9, not 16:10 like on the X301. So the X301 in fact has as a tiny bit more vertical height than the T440s screen (which I personally think is the far more important dimension--don't get me started about the stupid demise of the 4:3 screen). Indeed, in this respect the T440s is a step down from previous T4xxs machines that had 16:10 screens. As I say above, I also think the X301 could be upgraded to handle a larger screen (maybe). So again, I don't think this is really a design flaw of the X301, when considering how it manages to be so much lighter than the T440s, while also having more features. The display is something that could be upgarded, preserving the brilliant design of the X301 to live another day, rather than going with the inferior design of the T440s (which again I freely admit is a perfectly nice notebook--I imagine I may even get one, someday, for the cpu upgrade, etc.--I just don't think it's on the same level as the X301 in terms of design prowess).

But screen dimension aside, I think the comparison of the X301 to the T440s is exactly the most fare comparison. They both represent attempts on Lenovo's part to create fully featured, no compromises, lightweight laptops. (I'd say the X1 Carbon is really in a different category, since it's more of an attempt to trade off a lot of features, in exchange for being thin and light--although why it fails to be lighter than the X301, while making so many trade offs, I do not know.) In fact, you already agreed with me above that the X301 and T440s should more or less be seen as falling in the same ThinkPad lineage. You wrote above: "The T440s feels like an upgrade from the x301. The x301 would be a perfect notebook with a better display, and the T440s has the best display I have seen."

I'll take at face value your claim that TN displays are lighter than IPS displays. And I also assume the slightly smaller in surface area 13.3" 16:10 screen is a bit lighter than an otherwise identical 14" 16:9 screen. But do those differences in screen weight really account for the .5 lb difference in weight between the machines? Indeed since the T440s has no optical drive, which ought to reduce weight, does that mean it's screen is even more than .5 lbs heavier than the X301 screen? It seems pretty implausible to me that the screen really explains the weight differences.

Which brings me back to the point I keep making, which is that the X301 is just a better design. If parts like the cpu, motherboard, and screen were upgraded, it would be far superior to the T440s. If I had to guess, as I say above, I'd assume the X301 is overall made from better materials and that's why it's lighter, while having more features. But I don't really know. Obviously, it's probably the cumulative effect of a lot of little things. I don't think anyone has pointed to a single smoking gun that explains the weight difference. But on the basis of the logic of cummulative effects, I can only assume that the weight of the T440s therefore reflects the cummulative effect of a lot of choices for worse design and/or cheaper materials.

[mikemex]

I used to have an X61 and I loved it. It had a huge screen compared to the footprint. When I switched to my X200, the first thing that came to my mind was "what a waste of footprint". I took careful measurements and decided there was enough space on it to fit a 13" 15:10 ratio screen, I think the resolution I came up with was 1440x960. I wouldn't change much to the X200 except for that and we could call it X340. The X200 even had three MiniPCI slots, which would allow two mSATA drives for awesome capacity. A nice tradeoff for not having the optical drive...

[cb474]

Yeah, the X61 was a great laptop. I'm pretty sure the 12" 4:3 screen has slightly more vertical height than the 13.3" 16:10 screen on the X301, which is in turn has slightly more vertical height than the 14" 16:9 screen on the T440s. And yet, next to any of these machines the X61 looks tiny. Funny how the screens keep getting "bigger" but have appreciably no more (and really slightly less) vertical height. Of course when you're doing anything text based, which is basically everything people do on notebooks, except video, vertical height is the more important dimension.

And of course the vertical height on the X200 screen is ridiculously small. There is no meaningful sense in which the so called 12" screen on the X200 and the 12" screen on the X61 are comparable. No only is the X200 screen significantly shorter, but it also has much less overall surface area. How is that an improvement?

Ironically, Apple, who started the pointless fad for widescreen notebooks (which now every single other notebook manufacturer has mindlessly followed) has recognized that on a certain relatively small size device a widescreen is dumb and instead returned the iPad to good old 4:3. And, of cousre, the iPad is predominantly used in portrait mode, which even furth highlights the optimum functionality of vertical height. But since Apple did it, no one will ever see it as uncool.

[pianowizard]

Of course when you're doing anything text based, which is basically everything people do on notebooks, except video, vertical height is the more important dimension.

However, if one wants to view two text windows/documents side by side, then widescreen makes sense. That being said, side-by-side viewing is extremely difficult on 1366x768 -- usually that's done by partially overlapping the two windows. 1366x768 is the most common 16:9 resolution, meaning most 16:9 laptops are bad for both users who want height and those who want width. I find 1600x900 to be the minimal widescreen resolution that makes it reasonably easy to tile two windows horizontally, though the limited vertical resolution remains a handicap. It's no wonder that so many forum members here love 1600x1200, which offered both height and a reasonable amount of width. My favorite laptop resolution is 1920x1200, which is just as tall but even wider.

[cb474]

However, if one wants to view two text windows/documents side by side, then widescreen makes sense. That being said, side-by-side viewing is extremely difficult on 1366x768 -- usually that's done by partially overlapping the two windows. 1366x768 is the most common 16:9 resolution, meaning most 16:9 laptops are bad for both users who want height and those who want width. I find 1600x900 to be the minimal widescreen resolution that makes it reasonably easy to tile two windows horizontally, though the limited vertical resolution remains a handicap. It's no wonder that so many forum members here love 1600x1200, which offered both height and a reasonable amount of width. My favorite laptop resolution is 1920x1200, which is just as tall but even wider.

I agree that widescreen is nice for two text windows side by side. But I think in a 3.5 lb or less notebook it's not really possible to have a screen physically large enough (regardless of resolution and aspect ratio) to accomodate this. To me, this really only works well in desktops, because once you hit 20" (or even 17") you have plenty of vertical height and it's no longer an issue, so extra horizontal inches become what counts instead.

But on a 14" 16:9 or even 16:10 screen, for me, side by side documents is not really doable. Maybe 15" widescreen would be sort of okay, but now we're talking bigger, heavier notebooks (Samsung Series 9 notwithstanding). I do think once you reach a certain minimum sufficient resolution, it's really about inches (actual physical size) not resolution. Which is why there is just a basic physical limitiation for a notebook and side by side documents. At least until some miracle of materials and engineering that allows reasonably sized 3lb 15-16" notebooks, that doesn't have to sacrifice in every other feature. In the meantime, I'd rather expend the extra weigh of extra screen surface area in a notebook on the vertical height.

That being said, I agree that if notebook screens must be widescreen, 16:10 is much more preferable. And 1920 x whatever is definitely nice too. But 16:9 is just dumb. Even Apple, who started the whole stupid widescreen fad, has not made the shift to 16:9 (except I guess with the smallest Air). Everyone is trying to outcompete Apple in its own stupid design trends. You do something stupid, we do it even stupider! Ha! Although searching around I actually see many Apple users complaining that the "whole industry" has shifted to 16:9, when is Apple going to do it, as if Apple is someone behind the stupid trend they themselves began. Complaining about MacBooks not having 16:9 is beyond my comprehension. They should count their blessings. In fact, it's possibly the only thing that could possibly make me want an Apple product.

[pianowizard]

But on a 14" 16:9 or even 16:10 screen, for me, side by side documents is not really doable.

Basically, you are saying that when a 14" screen has a high enough resolution that supports side-by-side tiling, the high pixel density makes things look too small for you. Well, that's too bad. For me, I can comfortably handle up to around 160 pixels per inch, so I am okay with 14.0" 1920x1080 (157.4 DPI) and probably even 13.3" 1920x1080 (165.6 DPI). I used two of the highly coveted 15.0" 2048x1536 (170.7 DPI) IPS panel for about a year and they were somewhat uncomfortable, though I suspect the experience would have been more pleasant had these screens been significantly brighter.

[cb474]

Basically, you are saying that when a 14" screen has a high enough resolution that supports side-by-side tiling...

Resolution has nothing to do with ability to display side by side documents. It only concerns how well one can resolve text as the physical size of a document shrinks. These days there are smartphones with 16:9 1920 by 1080 resolution screens, as small as 5". You could resolve two side by side documents on such a phone exactly the same as on your 14" 16:9 1920 by 1080 laptop screen. I doubt this would be very useful to anyone.

My point is that actual physical size matters in this equation. Given that 14" 16:9 screens are slighter shorter than 13.3" 16:10 sreens, which are in turn slightly shorter than even 12" 4:3 screens, I don't think the extra couple inches on the side really make for a great side by side document viewing experience. Documents at what I think would be a reasonable size are a lot more than a couple inches extra wide. I'm sure there are a handful of people, perhaps such as yourself, who are fine with incredibly tiny text. I certainly pretty much never see people displaying side by side documents on todays relatively small 16:9 laptops. Meanwhile, you're losing a lot of extra lines of text that could be displayed vertically on a 14" 4:3 screen.

And this is not why manufacturers made laptops widescreen, for those "super useable" extra inches on the side. They did it to follow Apple's design fad. They did it because people thought it looked cool. They did it to accomodate watching video (the one use case that makes sense). And they probably did it because the overall surface area of 16:9 screens in a given dimension is less, meaning less pixels, which probably makes for a cheaper screen.

In reality, I think very few people find the side by side windows scenario very useful on a 14" 16:9 screen or smaller. It's nothing like how useful it actually is on large 20" desktop monitors, which already have plenty of vertical space.

[pianowizard]

Resolution has nothing to do with ability to display side by side documents....

Actually, resolution has a lot to do with this ability, and your entire post was just an elaboration of my previous post. Try the following. You said you have a 20" desktop monitor, correct? If it has a native resolution of 1680x1080, reduce that to 1280x800 and see how that affects your ability to tile two windows. If it's 1600x900, reduce that to 1366x768. Even on a 30" 2560x1600 monitor, if you use it at 1280x800 and try to tile two Word documents, you would need to view them at something like 70% scaling and text would be quite hard to read.

Both resolution and screen size matter: the former determines how many pixels are available to display information, and the latter determines how big/small things look. I am the biggest resolution freak on this forum and so I would understand this. I don't know why you thought I had claimed that screen size was irrelevant. Like I said, I could tolerate up to ~160 pixels per inch, which is determined by both resolution and screen size.

Different users have different preferences and viewing abilities. Some people that have good vision prefer to view two documents side by side even if that means making the documents pretty small, whereas others prefer things to look big on the screen and tiling two documents on a 14.0" 1920x1080 screen (like on the newly released T440s) is out of the question.

[cb474]

I had no idea if you thought screen size was important. I just saw that you responded to my post about the importance of screen size as an ultimate limiting factor as screens get smaller, by talking instead about resolution (and making a bunch of assumptions about what size text I like to look at based on zero information about me). And I would also say that if you think I'm just elaborating on something you said, then you don't understand what I'm saying.

Still, as far as resolution goes, sure, one can push the issue to the point of absurdity. A 30" monitor with a resolution of 2 x 2 won't be able to render any legible text. But I guess I was trying to talk about actual practical reality. In reality, as laptop screens get smaller, it really doesn't matter how well they can render text through very high resolutions, because the physical size of side by side documents just becomes too annoyingly small. You can have infinite resolution and you will still aways run up against the physical size problem and the limits of human vision. That is why I said with ever shrinking, stupidly proportioned, widescreen laptop monitors, physical size is the the issue and resolution is ultimately not relevant. Nothing you said discounts this point.

Of course, people will have different preferences. I agree on that point. But everyone will have an ultimate physical size limit, beyond which side by side documents are not really doable. And I argue that in my experience I see almost no one using side by side documents on 14" 16:9 laptop monitors and (especially) anything smaller. There may be a few outliers, such as yourself, who are comfortable with this. But outliers are not relevant to my argument that in general the advent of the 16:9 laptop monitor has overall for most people not opened a new world of highly useful side by side document use case scenarios. This has been true on larger widescreen desktop monitors. But on laptops, for looking at text, the 16:9 monitor is almost entirely a hindrance. The loss of vertical space, and therefore lines of text, far outweighs the marginal benefits of limited side by side document scenarios that few people seem to prefer on such a small scale.

In fact, when I've seen other people defend the widescreen monitor on small laptops, you're the only person I've heard say it's for the capacity too look at side by side documents (though I don't doubt there are at least a few others). What I've seen is people say those couple extra inches are handy for keeping a Skype window open or a music player, something like that. In other words, one window using most of the space to actually be useable to work with text and a second smaller window just for a very secondary purpose.

[pianowizard]

I just saw that you responded to my post about the importance of screen size as an ultimate limiting factor as screens get smaller, by talking instead about resolution (and making a bunch of assumptions about what size text I like to look at based on zero information about me).

What assumptions did I make? You said yourself that "on a 14" 16:9 or even 16:10 screen, for me, side by side documents is not really doable. Maybe 15" widescreen would be sort of okay". So, I didn't have to assume anything, except that I had to assume your statement was an honest one. What other assumptions did I make about you? "A bunch" should mean at least three. As a scientist, I am interested in discussions about assumptions.

And I would also say that if you think I'm just elaborating on something you said, then you don't understand what I'm saying...You can have infinite resolution and you will still aways run up against the physical size problem and the limits of human vision.

Yeah, that's exactly what I wrote in my previous post, about everyone having a screen size limit below which things would look unpleasantly small. In other words, we have kept agreeing with each other on this point, and yet you keep insisting that we don't.

Still, as far as resolution goes, sure, one can push the issue to the point of absurdity. A 30" monitor with a resolution of 2 x 2 won't be able to render any legible text.

And yet you previously said "Resolution has nothing to do with ability to display side by side documents".

And I argue that in my experience I see almost no one using side by side documents on 14" 16:9 laptop monitors and (especially) anything smaller.

Hey, I never argued against this. Like I said, please don't imagine an argument that doesn't exist.

In fact, when I've seen other people defend the widescreen monitor on small laptops

Wait a minute, when I started "defending" widescreens (in my Oct 29th AM post), I was responding to your criticism of widescreen laptops in general: "Of course when you're doing anything text based, which is basically everything people do on notebooks, except video, vertical height is the more important dimension" (from your Oct 28th PM post). Are you saying you were really only referring to "small" laptops?

[systemBuilder]

1. It lacks a thinklight, it's not a THINKPAD. I have often used thinklights to read papers in private on an airplane without really using the laptop screen, to avoid disturbing my neighbor. Lenovo is following a very dorky idea, "The average laptop user is a gamer who watches movies" and so they kill the thinklight and think that any 16:9 display and gamer keyboard suffices!

2. When I got my Thinkpad 420 I had a hell of a time because on paper it was a 14" display, in reality it only had 85 square inches vs. 101 for most 14.1" 4:3 laptops. Size matters! If Lenovo really cared about its user, it would be putting 14.6" (92 sq inch) displays on its laptops, or maybe even larger 16:10 displays (perhaps 96 sq inches) - the form factor of the base supports it !!

3. It's not just about the keyboard, it's also about the touchpad !! We own many T42/T42p's, a T61p, I had a T420 and now a T430s. The T420 sucked because of the sandpaper touchpad - the T430s is FAR CLOSER to a T40 than any laptop SINCE the T40, but it still has a sandpaper touchpad - also on T430s - not the high-velocity glossy touchpad. The sandpaper touchpad eventually wears smooth in the middle and looks ragged! A laptop whose plastic loses a war with my finger in 12 months of mild usage is NOT a thinkpad! And the slippery chicklet keys are also very bad for the thinkpad T4/530 models. A new thinkpad with a goofy ultrabook-pad - like the T440s - will be an even worse Apple-style FAIL.

4. It has to last 7 hours on a freshly charged set of new batteries and the batteries have to be hot-swappable. The T430s is a FAIL in this respect since it has a goofy built-in non-removable 6-cell wimpy battery, and seldom makes 6.5 hours with the ultrabay battery installed.

5. IPS (or other very high-quality bright 178-degree) display has to be an option, for the person who intends to use it for 10 years at least ..

no thinklight
no touchpad buttons
no mute / up / down volume
no pair of batteries including a 9-cell
no ips display
not a thinkpad.

[ZaZ]

I actually like the sandpaper finish on the T420 touch pad. I guess you can't make everyone happy.

[AnakiMana]

...

5. IPS (or other very high-quality bright 178-degree) display has to be an option, for the person who intends to use it for 10 years at least ..

...
no ips display
not a thinkpad.

I thought the T440s did have an IPS display?

[ssd_thinkpad]

The T440s FHD display uses a VA technology from my understanding. It is superior to TN like IPS. The technology is a bit different, but you may get the idea. What I like about the display is it does not flicker. The vast majority of all displays (including IPS displays) flicker. The flicker problem was introduced with the LED technology being used as backlight. With LEDs you can turn a display backlight on and off without any hassle, the cheap LED backlight technology implementation just turns a display on and off to manipulate the backlight intensity.

The more expensive LED backlight technology uses constant current, that means the current will be manipulated for manipulating the backlight intensity. It is very rare.

[puma]

Got mine. Love it. Love the quality, the build, the feel.

Still getting used to the new trackpad buttons when using the track pointer.. it moves when I click. Anyone else?

Also the the keyboard is great in my opinion, how ever they get greasy fast! Prints and lotion or whatever.. buildup .. anyone else notice this?

[Ibthink]

Still getting used to the new trackpad buttons when using the track pointer.. it moves when I click. Anyone else?

Also the the keyboard is great in my opinion, how ever they get greasy fast! Prints and lotion or whatever.. buildup .. anyone else notice this?

For the problem with the moving pointer, I would recommend you to either disable the TouchPad in the BIOS or to lower the sensitivity of the TouchPad.

The grease is normal, at the beginning, it really is a bit much, but after some weeks of useage, it becomes less and less. The advantage is: They keys do not become glossy or slippery over time.

[warmstrong]

Got my T440s with touch screen last week. This is approximately my 15th ThinkPad going back to the original 700C. So far the T440s is a step above my T430s, which will now go to warranty service because of frequent fan issues. I'm enjoying the touch screen as an alternative to the trackpoint and trackpad.

I also like the extended battery life gained from a combination of the internal 3-cell and the removable 6-cell batteries. Wow!

One negative, the laptop does not seem to sit quite level on my desk with the display open and the 6-cell battery installed. I'm getting a tiny bit of distortion on the front right corner.

It's also a bit of a bummer that the older AC adapter plus no longer work with the T440s. I have several of these kicking around home and office. Now I have to purchase at least one additional adapter.

[sjahanmi]

I love my T440s. Its reliable, fast, and everything you could want in a laptop (my fill video review is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1GdvPLqjdQ). The full HD touch screen has a beautiful resolution...although the backlight does bleed around the edges but its only noticeable when the screen is black. The battery life (8-10hrs) is amazing. First I had gotten the Flex 14 but it let me down with its constant freezing and driver issues after upgrading to windows 8.1...plus, it was too big and heavy. Then I got the Yoga 2 Pro and I couldn't stand its glare ridden mirror of a screen...my eyes would start to hurt after only about 20 mins of looking at that mirror of a screen. So finally I just decided to do what I should have done in the first place, get a ThinkPad. Out of curiosity, does anyone know if Lenovo uses a difference grade/quality motherboard on their ThinkPads vs. IdeaPad line ? I mean, and i5 or i7 is the same whether its on an Essential, Ideapad, and Thinkpad, but theres gotta be a difference in the quality of the motherboards used in ThinkPads I would have to think. Or maybe they pay more attention to driver integration/system stability on ThinkPads prior to rollout that their other lines? Anyone have a good sense how this works with Lenovo?

[cb474]

It's also a bit of a bummer that the older AC adapter plus no longer work with the T440s. I have several of these kicking around home and office. Now I have to purchase at least one additional adapter.

There is this adapter for the different tip:

http://www.amazon.com/POWER-ADAPTR-SLIM ... B00BOVO5GY

Can be found cheaper elsewhere, though still on the order of $30, which is ridiculous.

Also there are third party adapters, e.g.:

http://www.amazon.com/Patuoxun-Adapter- ... 00E3A4OIC/

[ind]

Hi guys,

Four quick questions for you regarding t440s, which hopefully will help me decide if to buy this model:

1. In your experience, can you do computations on this ultrabook (assuming 12GB)? e.g. Eclipse, Visual Studio, Matlab, etc.

2. Trackpad sound when pressing it down: how bad is it actually? Can you tap on the trackpad, without pressing it down, similar to Mac?

3. How would you rate t440s trackpad compared to Mac?

4. Most reviews seem to refer to a Windows configuration. How would that change for linux?

Thanks!