Thinkpads Forum

lead_org,
thank you for the update.

lead_org wrote: ... Apparently, right now the bottleneck for Retro project is on sourcing the screen. for 13.3 inches 16:10 and 15.4 inches 16:10 IPS screens are all exclusively produced for Apple. ...

I don't see that as something, which seems to hit Lenovo by ill luck, but as a predictable consequence of a decade of neglected business relations with LCD suppliers!
Nevertheless I do wish the Retro Team good luck to find a good 4:3 Retina screen for the eagerly-awaited Classic Thinkpad.

Kind Regards,
Lo PHi

What about the 14.1 inch 16:10 screen? If I remember correctly, "16:10" and "14 inches" were the data which David Hill at least chose to present.

Of course, nothing would be better than a 3:2 screen (or, but probably out of the question, a 4:3 screen, given at least 15 inches in order to have sufficient width), but 13.5 inches gives a little too low screen, I think. It is comparable with the 14.1 inch 16:10 E6410 screen I have been using the last week, where I would have wanted a bit higher screen (while the width was ok).

The perfect machine would be a >=15 inches 4:3 screen, but if we must have 3:2 and 14 inches, I suggest a 14.4 inches 3:2 screen.

Lenovo is working on the LCD supply issue right now. I guess we will know more next month.

Can't they ask for a custom panel? They have done it before and LCD manufacturers are evidently capable of producing 4:3 and 3:2 displays.

I'll be cynical again but this is 2015 Lenovo we're talking about.

For the last few years they've constantly demonstrated that they weren't ready to go the extra mile for the sake of their customers: removal of ultra-cheap replacement trackpoint caps from the computer package, no optional classic keyboard on offer (which could have been priced twice or thrice as much as the chiclets one, in order to remain cost-effective), etc.

Custom doesn't rhyme with cost-cutting.

Thank you Lead for the update.

I have a question for the ppl here that can see clearer into the future than me. What gpu options will this "retro" thinkpad have? I have had my hopes up for a intel cpu with as many gpu cores as possible and as much L4 (or eDRAM) as possible, but 72 core, 128MB skylake seems like a pipedream (or whatever the English word for a dream that might not come true is) so what is realistic? dgpu seems highly unlikely, yes?

lead_org wrote:So a little update for you all, Lenovo still working very hard on the ThinkPad Retro project. A team of Taiwanese diehard ThinkPadders will visit Lenovo Yokohama next week, and they will be briefed on all things ThinkPad (and some details on Retro). Apparently, right now the bottleneck for Retro project is on sourcing the screen. for 13.3 inches 16:10 and 15.4 inches 16:10 IPS screens are all exclusively produced for Apple. But i am guessing CES we will see the prototype for the Retro ThinkPad.

I'm late to the party, but you've got me excited!

murak wrote:I have a question for the ppl here that can see clearer into the future than me. What gpu options will this "retro" thinkpad have? I have had my hopes up for a intel cpu with as many gpu cores as possible

That is my only hope,

I am not going to buy anything with a dGPU.

lead_org wrote:Apparently, right now the bottleneck for Retro project is on sourcing the screen. for 13.3 inches 16:10 and 15.4 inches 16:10 IPS screens are all exclusively produced for Apple.

No harm done, if price is close, they should use 3:2

Just to be clear about this: If the Retro ThinkPad turns out to board a seven row chiclet keyboard (for the sake of trying a combination never used before), I will not buy it. I'd much rather have the non-chiclet six row L420 keyboard.

Systematician wrote:Just to be clear about this: If the Retro ThinkPad turns out board a seven row chiclet keyboard (for the sake of trying a combination never used before), I will not buy it. I'd much rather have the non-chiclet six row L420 keyboard.

I fear Lenovo will decide that classic Thinkpad fans tend to have so many, and sometimes contradictory, deal-breakers that they will just put out another 16:9 Ultrabook.

They will give it an IPS screen, which they will trumpet as a revival of the "Flexview" brand, add a new logo that evokes the past, throw in three exchangeable Trackpoint nubs, add a disk activity light, and call it a day.

This way they can keep costs down, and reach their desired conclusion that there is no market for retro Thinkpads.

My money is on a 7-row Chiclet keyboard as well.

I hope I am wrong.

tiorapatea wrote:

Systematician wrote:Just to be clear about this: If the Retro ThinkPad turns out board a seven row chiclet keyboard (for the sake of trying a combination never used before), I will not buy it. I'd much rather have the non-chiclet six row L420 keyboard.

I fear Lenovo will decide that classic Thinkpad fans tend to have so many, and sometimes contradictory, deal-breakers that they will just put out another 16:9 Ultrabook.

They will give it an IPS screen, which they will trumpet as a revival of the "Flexview" brand, add a new logo that evokes the past, throw in three exchangeable Trackpoint nubs, add a disk activity light, and call it a day.

This way they can keep costs down, and reach their desired conclusion that there is no market for retro Thinkpads.

My money is on a 7-row Chiclet keyboard as well.

I hope I am wrong.

I fear a chiclet keyboard, but I don't expect it anything more than I expect a non-chiclet keyboard. I just hope that Lead_org and other parties involved in the project read this thread and see that the ThinkPad traditionalists actually want a traditional keyboard.

The new chiclets keyboard in newer lenovo's are usually reviewed better than the keyboard in T520.

Personally i would prefer chiclets keyboard for the key pressure feel and travel, but, if they are able to use the same mechanical characteristics*, while using old style buttons, that would be the best of both worlds.

* mechanical characteristics = very little force required to perform a click, silent.

hhhd1 wrote:The new chiclets keyboard in newer lenovo's are usually reviewed better than the keyboard in T520.

How do you substantiate that claim? My impression is the opposite - looking for instance at Reddit ThinkPad, where buying used Tx20(s) machines are frequently recommended for this reason (although many are comfortable with both keyboards, and some indeed like the newer ones better).

The exception is professional reviewers like Notebookcheck, who seem to have a bias for change as a good in itself. This for instance applied to the case. They wanted to see something new in the T520 and gave the chassis a score of only 85 %, while the T450 and T450s got 90 % and 95 %, respectively. I doubt few normal users who have tried both generations for some time would agree with these scores. Another effect of their "change as the normality" basis is that the disposal of the latch in the Tx40 generation was left uncommented by them.

Systematician wrote:

hhhd1 wrote:The new chiclets keyboard in newer lenovo's are usually reviewed better than the keyboard in T520.

How do you substantiate that claim? My impression is the opposite -

I think I didn't write that quite right ..

there are 3 properties to the keyboard:
-the layout
-the button mechanical feel and noise (including pressure required and travel).
-the island style with gaps between the keys.

I meant that the new keyboard is reviewed better ONLY when it comes to the feel of button click.

I have rarely seen any review comment badly on the button feel.

Mostly comment badly only on:
-the new weird layout.
-the island style, with gaps between the buttons, although many have said that it just takes time to get used to.

I have a W530 with (lite-on) chiclet keyboard. Key response is more firm and crisp than most of my Thinkpads (except for my NMB X301 keyboard, 600X and 770), but the key travel is lower and the layout makes no sense compared to the classic keyboard.

Systematician wrote:Just to be clear about this: If the Retro ThinkPad turns out to board a seven row chiclet keyboard (for the sake of trying a combination never used before), I will not buy it.

Same here, of course. Single biggest deal-breaker. There's a reason why I haven't bought anything post-*20 series.

It's the combination of "hd" widescreen and keyboard layout that does it for me. Not that I'd want to, but I could deal with the current keyboard as long as it has a 16:10 or 3:2 screen.

If they do a 16:9 screen again and keep the current layout then no. No point in buying a "Retro", even though it has a trackpoint and dedicated buttons. I'd probably get a P50 or an XPS 15.

Puppy wrote:2560x1440 is a problem while 3840x2160 is ok because when 200% zoom used you get 1920x1080. These high resolutions allows me to use text aliasing I can't stand on lower ones. IOW 1280x800 on 8" tablet is a pain to use while 1920x1200 is finally readable for me.

On a 15.6" screen, I prefer 2560x1440 (188.3 DPI) because I would use it either unscaled or at 125% scaling. For viewing comfort, I would scale at 125% most of the time, but when I need more real estate, I would turn off scaling so that I can view as much information on the screen as possible. If the panel is a very nice panel, 188.3 DPI without scaling is doable. The biggest problem with the R50p's 15" QXGA screen was that it looked too dull and dim, not its 171 DPI per se. I thought the DPI was the problem when I owned two QXGA R50p's, but after getting my Sony Pro13 and finding its 165.6 DPI screen so easy to view, I concluded that I can tolerate much higher pixel densities as long as the panel is high quality.

When the resolution is 3840x2160 (282.4 DPI), extreme scaling (150% at the very least) would be necessary and elements that scale poorly or don't scale would look either very weird or very small, or both. On my 28" 3840x2160 desktop monitor, I have been using 125% scaling for several months now and find it quite reasonable for all the programs I've tried so far.

fatpolomanjr wrote:If they do a 16:9 screen again and keep the current layout then no. No point in buying a "Retro", even though it has a trackpoint and dedicated buttons.

So far, it looks like the panel will almost certainly be 16:10. In fact, Lenovo seems to have "rigged" the poll to justify using 16:10 for this Thinkpad. If it turns out to be non-16:10, I predict it would more likely be 3:2 than 16:9.

Can we seriously rename the post subject of this trend (no offense), it's becoming less and less accurate.

Jtf wrote:Can we seriously rename the post subject of this trend (no offense), it's becoming less and less accurate.

We're supposed to get some news at CES, which is one month away.

Are there yet some bets on the London casino sites where one can put money on Lenovo screwing this up or not?

jcvjcvjcvjcv wrote:Are there yet some bets on the London casino sites where one can put money on Lenovo screwing this up or not?

The only certainity there would be the casino owners employing such a definition of 'screwed up' that would get u destitute...

For what it's worth, some users in the US may rejoice over the availability of the P50/P70 workstations.

Yup, P50/70 seem nice. IPS, HD indicator is back, and Xeon. I bet in 5 years we'll have people modding them by replacing keyboards (something from W5XX should fit nicely:)).

Bibin wrote:For what it's worth, some users in the US may rejoice over the availability of the P50/P70 workstations.

I would've been all over P70 if it sported a proper keyboard...

So the news i got 2 weeks or so ago is that the Retro project is stuck at the 16:10 screen stage. Apparently, Apple has an exclusive on IPS 16:10 screen in the 13.3 inches size. They are working with the screen supplier to see whether producing additional 16:10 screens are possible at a reasonable cost (and within timeframe).

So the Surface Book screen is not an option?

lead_org wrote: (and within timeframe).

What is the timeframe to begin with?

lead_org wrote:So the news i got 2 weeks or so ago is that the Retro project is stuck at the 16:10 screen stage. Apparently, Apple has an exclusive on IPS 16:10 screen in the 13.3 inches size. They are working with the screen supplier to see whether producing additional 16:10 screens are possible at a reasonable cost (and within timeframe).

I hope this doesn't drive a cost-saving TN panel decision.