Thinkpads Forum

Well, the X300 screen was exceptionally bad (I think it still holds some kind of record in awfulness), but it is also true that there were far better TN panels out there than what was used on most laptops, Thinkpads included. It is possible Apple used the higher quality ones.

dr_st wrote:Well, the X300 screen was exceptionally bad (I think it still holds some kind of record in awfulness), but it is also true that there were far better TN panels out there than what was used on most laptops, Thinkpads included. It is possible Apple used the higher quality ones.

Indeed, the X300 LCD is one of the worst TN panels I've seen. All the 14" models of ThinkPads (4:3, and the 16:10 ones as well) were pretty awful too. The 15.4" ones by LG and Sharp, though, were very good.

If the retro model is an X300 with a good LCD (I'd love 1920x1200) and a modern chipset/CPU combo, then I'd buy it without question...

as i wrote in the last blog post:

another tip.
If you cant get 16:10 IPS then:
1) get 3:2. That would be very nice for everybody.
2) if not, then try 16:10 PVA/MVA. That can be better than IPS (3000:1 contrast vs 1000:1 for IPS). We just dont want a crappy screen, but PVA/MVA is pretty good too! Viewing angle are not as good as IPS, but the lower black level/higher contrast worth it easily.

bgx wrote:as i wrote in the last blog post:

another tip.
If you cant get 16:10 IPS then:
1) get 3:2. That would be very nice for everybody.
2) if not, then try 16:10 PVA/MVA. That can be better than IPS (3000:1 contrast vs 1000:1 for IPS). We just dont want a crappy screen, but PVA/MVA is pretty good too! Viewing angle are not as good as IPS, but the lower black level/higher contrast worth it easily.

Yes, aspect ratio is only one facet of the problem, and I agree IPS/PVA would be great, as well as concentrating on fundamental quality metrics such as bleed, even backlight, brightness range (max and min), colour and grayscale accuracy etc.

However, for many people, the core issue is the total available height of the screen. For these people, it would be pointless just to use the Surface Book (3:2) or iPad Pro (4:3) panel, because the screens fundamentally are too small.

If Lenovo could somehow get hold of the Macbook Pro 15.4 inch retina panel (16:10) - which I doubt - the problem might then be overall device size would be rather large, and Windows has too many scaling issues at that resolution.

Therefore, I think Lenovo essentially has a binary decision either to use an expensive custom panel, or just use a 16:9 IPS. If the former, I struggle to see why you would bother with 16:10, given that Apple offers it already, and that it makes most sense in the 15+ inch form factor, which I suspect is a niche within the Retro niche. If you face going 16:9, you may as well abandon the whole project.

With 3:2 or 4:3 around the 14 inch mark, you at least have a distinctive product that is not currently served, and you would have a portable productivity focus (with somewhat greater emphasis on productivity than, say, an X-series), which to me defines the Thinkpad brand. Admittedly, it might not prove to be a profitable segment, but at least you have an identifiable niche that you are pursuing.

Or, I guess you could go X-series around 13 inches, but then screen height and therefore a tall aspect ratio become even more important. (If you are trying to offer something differentiated from the current market, which I assume is a major objective.)

bgx wrote: 2) if not, then try 16:10 PVA/MVA. That can be better than IPS (3000:1 contrast vs 1000:1 for IPS). We just dont want a crappy screen, but PVA/MVA is pretty good too! Viewing angle are not as good as IPS, but the lower black level/higher contrast worth it easily.

This is no longer true. The real contrast ratio is quite close for latest development of both technologies, there is also PLS which is Samsung IPS "clone" to prevent pay licenses to Hitachi. There is no 3000:1 real contrast possible of any LCD technology. For laptop display the limiting factor is backlight quality that is usually bad because of thinness requirement and permanent cuttings costs. So the black level is much higher and uneven compared to desktop monitor lcd panels.

As for viewing angles there is another cutting costs trick presented on X220 and later panels (apart from excessive image retention). The panel brightness goes dark around 45 degree horizontal angle because of an attempt to improve direct view panel brightness in favor of viewing angles uniformity. The worst option ever would be to use a glossy panel (the MacBook one) with a matte filter applied that makes the screen door effect known for X1 Carbon touch versions.

tiorapatea wrote:Therefore, I think Lenovo essentially has a binary decision either to use an expensive custom panel, or just use a 16:9 IPS.

Check DealExtreme. There is a lot of tablets from a "noname" vendors having IPS 9.7" 4:3 2048 x 1536 panels and so on. If such small vendors can deliver it, Lenovo can not ? The same for the 3:2 Google crapbook and many other 2in1 devices like Surface or Lenovo Miix 700. Oh yes, it might be a $10 more expensive per unit than 16:9 TV screen for the masses but no one expects the Retro model to be a low cost one. If they ends up with 16:9 the project is completely spoiled

tiorapatea wrote:

bgx wrote:as i wrote in the last blog post:

another tip.
If you cant get 16:10 IPS then:
1) get 3:2. That would be very nice for everybody.
2) if not, then try 16:10 PVA/MVA. That can be better than IPS (3000:1 contrast vs 1000:1 for IPS). We just dont want a crappy screen, but PVA/MVA is pretty good too! Viewing angle are not as good as IPS, but the lower black level/higher contrast worth it easily.

Yes, aspect ratio is only one facet of the problem, and I agree IPS/PVA would be great, as well as concentrating on fundamental quality metrics such as bleed, even backlight, brightness range (max and min), colour and grayscale accuracy etc.

However, for many people, the core issue is the total available height of the screen. For these people, it would be pointless just to use the Surface Book (3:2) or iPad Pro (4:3) panel, because the screens fundamentally are too small.

If Lenovo could somehow get hold of the Macbook Pro 15.4 inch retina panel (16:10) - which I doubt - the problem might then be overall device size would be rather large, and Windows has too many scaling issues at that resolution.

Therefore, I think Lenovo essentially has a binary decision either to use an expensive custom panel, or just use a 16:9 IPS. If the former, I struggle to see why you would bother with 16:10, given that Apple offers it already, and that it makes most sense in the 15+ inch form factor, which I suspect is a niche within the Retro niche. If you face going 16:9, you may as well abandon the whole project.

With 3:2 or 4:3 around the 14 inch mark, you at least have a distinctive product that is not currently served, and you would have a portable productivity focus (with somewhat greater emphasis on productivity than, say, an X-series), which to me defines the Thinkpad brand. Admittedly, it might not prove to be a profitable segment, but at least you have an identifiable niche that you are pursuing.

Or, I guess you could go X-series around 13 inches, but then screen height and therefore a tall aspect ratio become even more important. (If you are trying to offer something differentiated from the current market, which I assume is a major objective.)

I totally agree with you.
But it seems we have lost the aspect ratio battle. 16/10 won. It is sad.

They focus on 13.3" 16/10.
I guess they want to use a X270 board inside, 12" 16:9 width should be close to 13.3" 16:10 width.
Using a 3:2 may not offer this possibility.

The only way we may win a taller screen is if they cant get 16:10 screen.
If they can, i just state that MVA is not worse than IPS, and they may look at it.
I prefer to buy this 16:10 laptop rather than have no laptop at all.

For puppy,you have few MVA/PVA laptop with real 3000:1 contrast. I ll try to find some reference.
About the lower viewing angel, tha's the plague of TN panel, while IPS are the most open of all current panel.

Of course, Oled panel could be the best solution, but we have to wait may be another couple of years before samsung fabs are online.

I'm with you on this one, waitin' for OLED laptops for like two years since I'd learned about them...

Puppy wrote:There is a lot of tablets from a "noname" vendors having IPS 9.7" 4:3 2048 x 1536 panels and so on. If such small vendors can deliver it, Lenovo can not ? The same for the 3:2 Google crapbook and many other 2in1 devices like Surface or Lenovo Miix 700. Oh yes, it might be a $10 more expensive per unit than 16:9 TV screen for the masses but no one expects the Retro model to be a low cost one. If they ends up with 16:9 the project is completely spoiled

That's because they are using Grade B panels from the iPad "retina" models, which did not have exclusively manufactured panels with a custom bezel fused to them. They took advantage of a model of panel that was super available. Not comparable to this situation at all, as the 15.4" one in the MacBook are produced with the glass bezel integrated and are made exclusively for Apple.

Bibin wrote:That's because they are using Grade B panels from the iPad "retina" models, which did not have exclusively manufactured panels with a custom bezel fused to them. They took advantage of a model of panel that was super available.

Well, there's now the 12.9" iPad Pro, with a 4:3 screen that's large enough to be used as a laptop screen. Do you know if it also has no custom bezel fused to it?

pianowizard wrote:

Bibin wrote:That's because they are using Grade B panels from the iPad "retina" models, which did not have exclusively manufactured panels with a custom bezel fused to them. They took advantage of a model of panel that was super available.

Well, there's now the 12.9" iPad Pro, with a 4:3 screen that's large enough to be used as a laptop screen. Do you know if it also has no custom bezel fused to it?

I expect it does, but if it doesn't then it may be an option. It's far too late to get integrated into a retro thinkpad design at this point, unless the design phase is pushed back substantially.

Do we even know they even started the design phase...?

If the premonition that it will be shown at CES is true, then they have to have began the design phase. Otherwise, they will not have much to show.

It would be very funny if, just for a stage prototype, they got a NOS or even used 15.4" CCFL panel from the T500 days. Hope it's the LG or Sharp one

Bibin wrote:
It would be very funny if, just for a stage prototype, they got a NOS or even used 15.4" CCFL panel from the T500 days. Hope it's the LG or Sharp one

Heh...good luck fitting such a panel into a 13.3"-14" frame that is being discussed...

with the large bezel they designed in the past for 16:9, they may be able to fit in the same space a much taller screen!

jcvjcvjcvjcv wrote:Do we even know they even started the design phase...?

Good point. Also the information that there is a prototype being shown at CES 2016 is rather speculative. The fact is we still don't know anything

bgx wrote:with the large bezel they designed in the past for 16:9, they may be able to fit in the same space a much taller screen!

I was joking with the 15.4" screen, but honestly with the bezel size fitting it *might* actually work...

That would be an interesting T420 mod. Cram a 15.4" LCD in there, and do an LED backlight mod to it.

I proposed such a mod in x220 section, but the idea seems to have been ignored. Alas, all needed would be a 16:10 panel with proper dimensions. I am unable to find one so far.

I have been a little on and off this forum for the last months, but I lurk in the shadows and try to keep myself updated as good as I can.

Do anyone; lead_org or someone else in the so-called ThinkScopes team, know if there is any development around the RetroThinkpad these days?

-

Unfortunately, we likely won´t see a prototype on CES, due to the screen supply issue.

They could use a 16:9 or 3:2 display if necessary.

600X wrote:They could use a 16:9 or 3:2 display if necessary.

What, after they rigged the poll so that 8:5 wins?

Ibthink wrote:Unfortunately, we likely won´t see a prototype on CES, due to the screen supply issue.

If this concocted screen supply issue prevents even a prototype from being shown, this means that this project is simply too difficult for the company in its current state.

dr_st wrote:What, after they rigged the poll so that 8:5 wins?

I guess their plan backfired. Wouldn't be the first time.

Ibthink wrote:Unfortunately, we likely won´t see a prototype on CES, due to the screen supply issue.

How about this, they can at least make the next generation of mainline ThinkPads such that anyone with enough brains to use a screw driver can take and old 7-row keyboard and stick it into the machine. Or are they going to start removing the sixth role and fuse the function and options keys with the number keys? Seriously.

Jtf wrote: How about this, they can at least make the next generation of mainline ThinkPads such that anyone with enough brains to use a screw driver can take and old 7-row keyboard and stick it into the machine.

They didn't do it with the X230 in which the X220's classic keyboard mounted perfectly. I guess they were too busy forcing their """innovative""" island keyboard back then and couldn't be arsed incorporating the classic layout in the BIOS

I'd be okay with your proposal though; they should just scrap the Classic Thinkpad project since it sounds like it's going to be half-baked with a wide screen.

Hey Lenovo, just serve us more of that 16:9 crap (that or 16:10, no definitive difference for me really, if it's not square-ish it's all the same) but serve it with a classic keyboard option. You can technically do that, right? You can't argue you'll have difficulties sourcing the classic keyboard, right?! It's your own design which you'll just have to outsource to NMB. It'll be even cheaper than the Classic Project (cost-cutting! Shareholders will looooove that!!). And don't worry about backtracking, we're completely used to it by now, just play the victim card about the screen makers keeping your noble ambitions down, that'll be good enough of an excuse; it's not like we still had much respect for you anyway.

Now that I've received my T450s, I can say the keyboard (non-backlit, important!) is a good keyboard, save for the Home/End/PgUp/PgDn block being scrambled. The most important part, the key action, is at least better than my X61, which has always disappointed me a bit for typing. It's still no comparison to the X301 or X32, though.

Bibin wrote:Now that I've received my T450s, I can say the keyboard (non-backlit, important!) is a good keyboard, save for the Home/End/PgUp/PgDn block being scrambled. The most important part, the key action, is at least better than my X61, which has always disappointed me a bit for typing. It's still no comparison to the X301 or X32, though.

I don't mine whether it's the chiclet or the scissors mechanism. The Home/End and the surrounding keys are the ones that I have a problem with and that's a big deal for me because those keys make type more present if they are in the right layout. The problem with the new layout is that the insert key is placed next to and in line with the Home/End cluster so it's easy to mistake the Insert key for the End key and the End key for the Home key. Even with the 6-row keyboard, Lenovo could have done better like this:



Which would separate Insert from the Home/End cluster. It also moves the delete button to a spot where people can use it to feel where they are on the Insert/Delete/Home/End without going to the ends of the of the row. (Sorry the URL of the image changed).

Another thing I want to note is the menu key. I don't know about anyone else but I it a lot easier if I can ctrl + arrow key or (home/end then ctrl + key) to a word and press the context menu for copying/pasting/spell correcting. Lenovo now requires me to do Shift + Fn + F10 just to get a context menu and replace the old menu key with PrtSc as if PrtSc is used so heavily. They could have at least made it such that Menu is Fn + PrtSc or even better, keep the old Menu key and PrtSc becomes Fn + Menu.

I think it's fair to say that almost everybody finds more use in the Print Screen key than the menu key. I sympathize with wanting keyboard access for other actions like spell check (I suppose) but for copying and pasting there are a few more common key shortcuts that don't require a context menu in the first place. The placement of the insert key is certainly annoying, but not a killer.

Jtf wrote:but I it a lot easier if I can ctrl + arrow key or (home/end then ctrl + key) to a word and press the context menu for copying/pasting/spell correcting. Lenovo now requires me to do Shift + Fn + F10 just to get a context menu and replace the old menu key with PrtSc as if PrtSc is used so heavily. They could have at least made it such that Menu is Fn + PrtSc or even better, keep the old Menu key and PrtSc becomes Fn + Menu.

This is what I have been trying to propose in the Lenovo official forum many times. Improve BIOS to generate keyboard scan codes for all Fn+Ctrl+Shift+key combinations. You could use Windows keyboard mapping (SharpKeys) to customize keyboard you want. Unfortunately the word think has completely disappeared from ThinkPad design

You don't need to hold Fn if you have your BIOS set to the correct sane settings that restore F-key functionality. Shift-F10 is a single-handed procedure from both sides of the keyboard, with the right hand being easier.