Thinkpads Forum

Came up with an anti-glare ThinkLight design ("Two ThinkLights, Crossed"). Tested by taping LEDs to the lid of my T430. If David Hill does dual ThinkLights, I hope it would be arranged like this:

full size:
http://s3.postimg.org/el4vk8hy9/thinklight001.jpg

thumbnail:


alternate link:
https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaem ... iginal.jpg


How it works:
Glossy black plastic has a lot of specular reflection and very little diffuse reflection.
White paint has some specular reflection and a lot of diffuse reflection.
The usual ThinkLight position causes specular reflections of the LED to bounce off the black plastic of the keys straight into your eyes. By shining the lights from different angles, the specular reflections off the black plastic are directed to the sides away from your eyes, while the diffuse reflections off the white lettering are still visible. Basically the whites stay white while the black no longer glares. Result is better keyboard visibility.

mydreamlaptop wrote:Came up with an anti-glare ThinkLight design ("Two ThinkLights, Crossed"). Tested by taping LEDs to the lid of my T430. If David Hill does dual ThinkLights, I hope it would be arranged like this:

full size:
http://s3.postimg.org/el4vk8hy9/thinklight001.jpg

thumbnail:


alternate link:
https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaem ... iginal.jpg


How it works:
Glossy black plastic has a lot of specular reflection and very little diffuse reflection.
White paint has some specular reflection and a lot of diffuse reflection.
The usual ThinkLight position causes specular reflections of the LED to bounce off the black plastic of the keys straight into your eyes. By shining the lights from different angles, the specular reflections off the black plastic are directed to the sides away from your eyes, while the diffuse reflections off the white lettering are still visible. Basically the whites stay white while the black no longer glares. Result is better keyboard visibility.

And this is why Lenovo should listen to ThinkPadders. We're willing to give them R&D for free so we can make sure there's a great computer on the market.

mydreamlaptop wrote:Came up with an anti-glare ThinkLight design ("Two ThinkLights, Crossed").

Woah, that's really nice
I'm happy and thankful that you went through the effort of testing and picturing your idea. Looks good to me.

I sure hope Lenovo trials your concept and, if the results are conclusive, implements it. (Dual Thinklight + backlight solutions would be best).

mydreamlaptop wrote:Came up with an anti-glare ThinkLight design ("Two ThinkLights, Crossed").

That is great!

Hope they do it like you explained.

I love reading Lenovo's excuses about 4:3 being an impossibilitiy, and then reading this article, and my poor brain explodes at the contradiction....

http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/21/90087 ... ad-android

Knowing Samsung, they'll have 12+" tablets very shortly. Yes, they're AMOLED, but it should demonstrate the desire for them by the market. But who am I to know anything...

plympton wrote:I love reading Lenovo's excuses about 4:3 being an impossibilitiy, and then reading this article, and my poor brain explodes at the contradiction....

http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/21/90087 ... ad-android

Knowing Samsung, they'll have 12+" tablets very shortly. Yes, they're AMOLED, but it should demonstrate the desire for them by the market. But who am I to know anything...

As with everything, if Apple's doing it, it's cool.

That attitude really annoys me.

It's also worth noting that Apple commissioned the 4:3 panels for their own production, and then everyone else got to use them.

Lenovo would also have to commission a 4:3 panel, and for that, they'd either have to charge a lot, or they'd have to make the machine their volume model - which I suspect could mean that a 14.1" 4:3 T92 would be the only 14" machine that Lenovo would sell - no T460, no E460, no 14" IdeaPad, no 14" Yoga, etc., etc.

Honestly, I think the three basic form factors that make sense if you're doing custom panels (before going into subnotebooks) are 13.3" 16:10 (286 mm x 179 mm) for a notebook (A4 size), stretch it vertically for 14.1" 4:3 (286 mm x 215 mm) for a laptop, stretch that horizontally for 15.3" 3:2 (323 mm x 215 mm), 16.0" 16:10 (344 mm x 215 mm) or 16.6" 16:9.5 (362 mm x 215 mm) depending on how you want to handle the keyboard and how weird you want to go with the display.

plympton wrote:http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/21/90087 ... ad-android

I actually read this article because it's kind of a slow afternoon for me.

I think it's silly to conclude that the 4:3 screen is the only reason that iPad remains the best-selling tablet. It's one reason, but more importantly, the iPad is very well made overall, has reliable software, looks premium, and has the Apple logo.

The author's claim that HP's 4:3 Touchpad failed because of lousy software is also incorrect. WebOS was widely praised, and to this day I prefer it over Android, iOS, and Windows Phone. For example, swiping an app off the screen to close it is simply brilliant. The Touchpad failed because it was heavy, bulky, made of cheap plastic, used outdated hardware, priced way too high, and had a useless app store.

For sub-10" tablets, I do agree with the author that 4:3 works better than widescreens. As tablets get bigger though, more people will start to view two pages side by side just like they do on widescreen laptops, for which 3:2 is optimal, since it minimizes the amount of unused space. In fact, though my phone is "only" 7-inch, I already view some PDF files (sheet music) in two-page mode.

plympton wrote:Knowing Samsung, they'll have 12+" tablets very shortly.

Samsung already has a 12.2" Android tablet, although it's 16:10 (2560x1600): http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy ... 9000ZWAXAR

Well, the TouchPad did have software problems, even ignoring the app gap (which was pretty bad, let's be honest) and the fact that you had to install Preware to get a lot of the software.

WebOS had some excellent UI decisions, but the OS was incredibly inefficient at actually getting anything done - you had to install a ton of tweaks from Preware and overclock the tablet to 1.5 GHz minimum to get it to really be usable. Meanwhile, Android 4.x was perfectly usable even at 1.2 GHz, and at 1.5-1.7 GHz, it was actually quick, even on the "outdated" hardware that HP used. For that matter, because HP put some rather fast eMMC in there, it was faster than a lot of high-end Android tablets in non-gaming use (I distinctly remember the guy who started the TouchPad port of CyanogenMod deciding to not develop a port for the Transformer Pad 700, because in actual use, it was far slower due to the eMMC, despite having, oh, over twice the CPU power). It was a solid midrange device hardware-wise, really.

And, yes, it was somehow absurdly heavy for what it was... not sure how they got it that heavy, but they did. That's ultimately why I didn't use mine much, and ended up using a very small laptop instead.

Now, though, I'm using a WinBook TW700 (which I almost bought as a joke - "a $60 Windows tablet? Screw it, that's cheap enough to buy as an impulse buy to see how bad a $60 Windows machine can possibly be!") in that role, and if I need a keyboard, I use the ThinkPad Bluetooth keyboard (which is significantly larger than the tablet, I know).

plympton wrote: http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/21/90087 ... ad-android

This passage retained my attention:

The iPad keeps winning, at least in part, because everyone around it keeps getting lost in the chase for diversification. Maybe it’s better to let that go and focus on simply being better, and on beating the iPad on its own terms.

To pursue my earlier hypothesis on Lenovo's mindset, they possibly thought they were too "diverse". That is, too different - and too different due to sticking to an older design. Hence they found themselves out of fashion. And hence, the Apple-isation of everything, including the keyboard.

As we all know, this was a massive failure. Because they failed to understand was that they were out of fashion, certainly, but not out of relevancy.

They also failed to understand that fashion is cyclical, and that square-ish formats could regain acceptance. See: Apple Ipad & clones, Chromebook Pixel, and last but not least, mechanical keyboards.

Finally they forgot a business mantra: focus on what you do best.
What was the Thinkpads' best asset? Ding ding ding, you've guessed it: that very same keyboard that Lenovo put into the trashbin.
And when you trash your best competitive advantage, what happens to your sales and brand recognition? They become rubbish!

Nigellus wrote: As with everything, if Apple's doing it, it's cool.

Nah, gotta credit them for that: a squarish slate is much more ergonomic to use than a wide one.

Apple shouldn't sheepishly be followed when it comes to keyboards, thinness obsession, DRMs and closed systems; because all of that is effectively uncool (and the reason why I'll never buy into their ecosystem). However the marque does tend to have good ergonomic clues, and that should be acknowledged.

Summilux wrote:

Nigellus wrote: As with everything, if Apple's doing it, it's cool.

Nah, gotta credit them for that: a squarish slate is much more ergonomic to use than a wide one.

Apple shouldn't sheepishly be followed when it comes to keyboards, thinness obsession, DRMs and closed systems; because all of that is effectively uncool (and the reason why I'll never buy into their ecosystem). However the marque does tend to have good ergonomic clues, and that should be acknowledged.

I'm not faulting Apple for that. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. My objection is to "trendy" thinking in the masses.

When companies that make things I want to buy follow the lead of the stopped clock because the stopped clock is "cool" I have to wait until one of the two times of day when the clock is right in order to get my needs met.

Good on Apple for realizing a good aspect ration when they see one. Bad on the public for needing Apple to tell them. And bad on the other companies who follow aesthetic trends to the determent of their products.

Nigellus wrote:
I'm not faulting Apple for that. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. My objection is to "trendy" thinking in the masses.

When companies that make things I want to buy follow the lead of the stopped clock because the stopped clock is "cool" I have to wait until one of the two times of day when the clock is right in order to get my needs met.

The problem with the companies that have decided to follow the stopped clock is that their clocks are moving, but never on time and hence never right...not even twice a day...

ajkula66 wrote:
The problem with the companies that have decided to follow the stopped clock is that their clocks are moving, but never on time and hence never right...not even twice a day...

You have no idea how much we're on the same page right now.

As for angling the two "thinklights" I am not sure how that would work on a plane for example. The single thinklight works so why mess with it.

You could cut off the beam of the ThinkLights to the sides so that it doesn't extend past the keyboard, though.

this week's survey should be about CPU, GPU, RAM etc.

lead_org wrote:this week's survey should be about CPU, GPU, RAM etc.

Let's see if they'll propose a soldered option for the RAM

lead_org wrote:this week's survey should be about CPU, GPU, RAM etc.

Now that one is going to be *really* interesting, and this is where I predict the final forming of the two camps:

a) Re-vamp X301 camp

b) Re-vamp T60 or T500 - depending on whether we're discussing a 4:3 or a 16:10 - camp...

I'll be there, bright and early...

Summilux wrote: Let's see if they'll propose a soldered option for the RAM

I'd be extremely surprised if they don't.

You could cut off the beam of the ThinkLights to the sides so that it doesn't extend past the keyboard, though.

Actually, that's one of the great things about a ThinkLight, you can use it to illuminate
a small area around the laptop.

ajkula66 wrote: I'd be extremely surprised if they don't.

For the sake of it, then. Because I expect the large majority of would-be Classic buyers to loathe soldered memory. They're not giving in to extreme thinness so there's no reason they'd vouch for this.

bit_twiddler wrote: Actually, that's one of the great things about a ThinkLight, you can use it to illuminate
a small area around the laptop.

It'd be nice, though not so realistic, if the dual Thinklights could be fitted with a variable orientation.

Position 1: optimised for keyboard - less specular reflection.
Position 2: optimised for the surroundings - much more specular reflection but illuminates outside the keyboard area.


Oh and by the way, by the time this potential Thinkpad Classic project ships, it should be fitted with Skylake and this means good things in terms of graphics and battery life: http://www.fanlesstech.com/2015/07/excl ... boost.html

ajkula66 wrote:
Now that one is going to be *really* interesting, and this is where I predict the final forming of the two camps:

a) Re-vamp X301 camp

b) Re-vamp T60 or T500 - depending on whether we're discussing a 4:3 or a 16:10 - camp...

I'll be there, bright and early...
...

... and:
c) Re-Vamp T43p 15inch, i.e. T50! in 4:3!


I think that would be possilbe:
Lenovo could produce and update all three lines in a three year cycle.

lophiomys wrote:
... and:
c) Re-Vamp T43p 15inch, i.e. T50! in 4:3!


I think that would be possilbe:
Lenovo could produce and update all three lines in a three year cycle.

Unfortunately, old friend, I believe that we've lost that opportunity. Not that I'm going to stop fighting for it by repeating the same request ad nauseam to anyone willing to hear me out...

Lenovo can do anything, if there are enough people willing to pay. 10,000 of is willing to fork out 5000 USD for a laptop, then i would think it is better to go with a X301 remake of some sort. 3:2 would go great with butterfly keyboard.

lead_org wrote:Lenovo can do anything, if there are enough people willing to pay.

That statement doesn't really say much, does it?

10,000 of is willing to fork out 5000 USD for a laptop, then i would think it is better to go with a X301 remake of some sort. 3:2 would go great with butterfly keyboard.

Count me out HERE and NOW since there's no way in hell I'd spend $5K on a coffee-shop machine, retro or not.

Give me a *proper* 15" or larger workstation, and take my money. Probably times two.

Same here.

Given the technological possibilities of the 21st century and cheap production in China,
there is absolutely no justification to charge 5000 for a good laptop-workstation without diamonds and ivory inlaying!

The response to the Chinese T50 project and to the "Time Machine - Retro Thinkpad" blog post is proving that a substantial number of customers actually want a Classic Thinkpad.

"Count me out HERE and NOW since there's no way in hell I'd spend $5K on a coffee-shop machine, retro or not.

Give me a *proper* 15" or larger workstation, and take my money. Probably times two."

here, here...times 10,000!!! being a fan of backups/redundancy/better safe than sorry approaches, i'd be glad to buy 2 or even 3 of these "retro" machines if they're properly done.
........no offense to anyone who disagrees of course, but i can't believe people would be willing to fork over so much cash (possibly thousands of $!) for anything less than a true workstation replacement. i admit to being biased to t6x/t500's, but seriously, why bother getting something that's ultimately not *that* different from a t420/430, or a small-form x** etc etc??!! imo the biggest benefit of this retropad should be to bring back something that's dramatically different from today's machines, like the *truly* extinct **15"** 4:3 t60 (or 15" t4x etc)
......that said, being the owner of several t500's w/wsxga+ lcd's, i'd also "settle" for an upgrade of that great machine if they insist they can't bring back 4:3. (for me 16:10 or 3:2 is a reasonable compromise since 16:9 is hellish for anyone who needs to actually *read* anything on their laptop...incl. web sites!!)

lead_org wrote:Lenovo can do anything, if there are enough people willing to pay. 10,000 of is willing to fork out 5000 USD for a laptop, then i would think it is better to go with a X301 remake of some sort. 3:2 would go great with butterfly keyboard.

I could never justify spending that much money on a laptop, even if Lenovo brought back the T4* or T60 with modern internal hardware. Even paying half that amount is still alot, but if I can get a mid-high spec one for $2000, that would be my limit.

When I started buying laptops in 2002, I was willing to spend well over $1,000 on a laptop, despite being a grad student on a meager stipend. My first laptop was a $1,760 Dell Inspiron 8200. In following five years or so, I would buy several more $1K+ laptops (plus lots of cheap used laptops just for fun). Now I have more money, but wouldn't pay more than $800 for any laptop, even if I think it's perfect.

I suspect lots of folks exaggerate how much they are willing to pay for this Classic Thinkpad. Unfortunately, Lenovo might actually believe them and expects this project to be lucrative. Lenovo will proceed with the production, and people will get excited, but most will back off once they learn that the price tag is $5,000. Lenovo will lose their shirts and vow to never attempt any "retro" experiment again.

pianowizard wrote:When I started buying laptops in the early 2000s, I was willing to spend well over $1,000 on a laptop, despite being a grad student on a meager stipend. My first laptop, bought in 2002, was a $1,760 Dell Inspiron 8200. I would buy several more $1K+ laptops later in that decade. Now I have more money, but wouldn't pay more than $800 for any laptop, even if I think it's perfect.

I suspect lots of folks exaggerate how much they are willing to pay for this Classic Thinkpad. Unfortunately, Lenovo might actually believe them and expects this retro model to be lucrative. Lenovo will proceed with the production, and people will get excited, but most will back off once they learn that the price tag is $5,000. Lenovo will lose their shirts and vow to never attempt any "retro" experiment again.

I agree with your basic premise. A lot of what has driven down the cost/purchase price of laptops in the past 15 years has been due to economies of scale. In 2000, it was totally reasonable and expected to spend $2-4000 on a high end laptop (and even basic consumer grade machines came in at or above the $1k mark). By the time we hit the T60 era, for a machine most here would agree was still mostly an uncompromising business-grade design, that window was down substantially. Combine the lowered prices with the devaluation of the currency, and it's little shock that people are conditioned to spend far less now.

On top of that, the vast majority of users simply don't need high-end power by today's standards. A low to mid-grade dual-core processor is plenty for the average user, and even a several year old version is sufficient for normal use on modern operating systems. This stagnation has allowed many people to stop feeling the need to upgrade to the highest-level options available. For me personally, I can justify, but do not absolutely need top-tier performance. That said, I'm still happy to pay for a machine with modular parts design that has a long-term design lifecycle, unlike the majority of modern thin-and-lights. I paid $1400 for my current machine (bought on closeout; its MSRP was ~2k), and cannot fathom a modernized classic T-series coming in much below that. I honestly don't think it's coming anyway. A throwback X-series (preferably like X201 rather than X301, in order to get higher-power processors) would still be a compelling product to me though.