Rant about 16:9, and maybe switching back to X60t from T520

[pianowizard]

I see. I thought that you actually had some productivity issues with it

Actually, besides the shape, killer also had producitivity issues with 4:3 because he wrote:

Each to their own, RBS. I like the ability to have side-by-side windows, which is easily accomplished on a wide screen...It has nothing to do with resolution.

Nothing to do with resolution? You could not be more wrong. The ability to have side-by-side windows depends on the screen's horizontal resolution. Since your T43 is only 1024x768, of course it's nearly impossible to view two windows side by side. On the other hand, if the screen was 1600x1200 (which is 4:3), then it would be just as easy to tile two windows side by side as on your T510, which also has 1600 pixel columns. In addition, the 1600x1200 screen would allow you to view 33% more vertically, so you would scroll much less than on your T510.

There are many 4:3 diehards who dislike 1024x768 just as much as you. So, don't diss 4:3 until you have tried 1600x1200 or at least 1400x1050.

[loyukfai]

Just to chime in a little bit with my random thoughts.

I would say that part of the reason why some people dislike widescreen ratios is that they have a strong attitude against change itself.

That being said, some of the points raised are quite interesting, such as the new bag argument. Since the X61T with the 8-cell battery is in a box shape, it's quite difficult to find something in the mass market that fits it.

I can imagine, in some use cases, a widescreen can indeed make one less productive.

For me, both 4:3 and widescreens are okay. Widescreens may feel good at first because they seem to give you more space, but whether it really entails increased productivity is up to debate. I can voice my opinions, but at the end of the day I will probably have to take what the makers offer cause I'm the 99%. Although I think a widescreen will suite me better at the moment because I'm spending a lot of time in Lightroom right now.

And I will probably welcome the wider keyboard as well.

OTOH, as a tablet user, widescreens give us less horizontal space during portrait mode.

BTW, maybe I have poor eyesight, but I'm not that obsessive with high resolutions. Even at 1024x768 I turn the font size on this forum up a notch just to ease eye strain a little bit.

And I was never given a chance to choose. But since screen ratios also dictate a lot of other aspects in the design, it doesn't seem quite possible for a maker to practically offer from the same line with different screen ratios.

IIRC, one of the main reasons for the makers to switch to widescreens was that they're somehow cheaper to make (because of more efficient usage of the substrate). Also, more and more people now watch TV and movies on their computers. Lastly, I read that because of the field of view of human eyes, widescreens actually match better in that regard. (I'm sputtering all of this out of my head so take it with a significant grain of salt).

Cheers.

[rumbero]

There are many 4:3 diehards who dislike 1024x768 just as much as you. So, don't diss 4:3 until you have tried 1600x1200 or at least 1400x1050.

As much as i like the 4:3 format, i'd only accept these with decent resolutions like the two last mentioned. Other than that, I'd rather prefer a 16:10 or even 16:9 format screen with superior vertical pixel height of at least 900 over any 4:3 1024x768 resolution. For me it is the resolution within a certain pixel per inch range while favouring vertical over horizontal pixels which actually matters.

A 16:9 HD+/WSXGA screen with 1600x900@15,6" has an already very ergonomic pixel per inch ratio of 117 DPI, but it simply lacks those sorely missed 300 pixels in the vertical direction.

[RealBlackStuff]

That being said, some of the points raised are quite interesting, such as the new bag argument. Since the X61T with the 8-cell battery is in a box shape, it's quite difficult to find something in the mass market that fits it.

I use this very bag for my X60s with extended battery. There's a separate compartment for the power supply.
http://www.gomacpro.com/sportfolio-ii-c ... -air-11-1/
They ship internationally.

[dsvochak]

Since an increase in pixel density does not always result in more data being seen on the screen (See eq http://www.apple.com/iphone/compare-iphones/), I have questions.

On a 14” Z61 with a 1280x800 screen with display properties set to “Normal dpi” I can see 37 lines of a blank Excel 2003 spreadsheet with the “Standard” and “Formatting” toolbars showing. How many lines of the spreadsheet would I see on 1400x1050 or 1600x1200?

Assuming additional lines of the spreadsheet can be seen how does that increase productivity?

Since I spend most of my time creating or editing pleadings, briefs, contracts, etc. how would any increased view of the text increase productivity?

[dr_st]

52 lines on 1050 pixels, 60.5 lines on 1200 pixels.

[loyukfai]

I use this very bag for my X60s with extended battery. There's a separate compartment for the power supply.
http://www.gomacpro.com/sportfolio-ii-c ... -air-11-1/
They ship internationally.

Thanks, but despite a slight difference in the model name, the tablet version actually has a vastly different form factor and dimensions than the standard or "s" version of the X-series, especially when coupled with a 8-cell battery.

And I had found a good sleeve already, which I hope will last as long as this box is with me.

Cheers.

[pianowizard]

Since an increase in pixel density does not always result in more data being seen on the screen (See eq http://www.apple.com/iphone/compare-iphones/)

The screens of most phones, including the iPhones, scale differently than Windows. In Windows, the amount of data being displayed is directly proportional to the amount of pixels.

[loyukfai]

Someone will probably come and say that we can change the DPI in Windows as well. But as one of those who have done it, you know it's kind of ugly, and there will be quirks here and there.

Cheers.

[tombaker]

4:3 is vastly superior than any 16:9 (16:10 is better but is still blown away.

Here is my proof http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?e2ba ... 2ffca33123

As you can see the the itty bitty 12.1 matches the 15.4, and the 14.1 matches the monster 18 inch wide format. Beyond a movie, nothing needs the wide format. Look at how twin 19 inch 5:4 monitors compare to a single 24 inch for a desktop

The 14.1 1400 x 1050 is near perfect for a general laptop. XGA for 12.1 is easy to read, and the keyboards on the X series are easy to type with.

The T60 with current specs would be a winner if Lenovo would figure it out. Think of the corporate sales they could get.

[dr_st]

Change the image there to 16:9 and you'll see a vastly different picture.

It's a no-brainer to say that aspect ratio X is the best for viewing images whose aspect ratio is also X.

[tombaker]

Change the image there.....

I don't think anyone thinks that watching a movie on a wide screen laptop is better than a 4:3. But that is not the usage for most people for a laptop.

Programs are not really benefited much by wide screens, with the exception of a possible exception of photo editing where the extra space can be used for a pallet of brushes. Still even there you would not want to do color critical work on a TN screen. Here the X60t does have a screen that would be useable for photography with and IPS.

There are no web pages that are designed for wide screens. You put a web browser on full screen and you just have stuff separated by more spaces horizontally. You get to swing your head more. The pictures in my link reflect a web browser or a program.

If you are able to show any applications or common usages of a laptop that benefit from the wide screen I would be curious.

Think about it:
The 12.1 does an equal job on a web browser as does a 15.4, that to me is huge win for the 4:3 format.

[dr_st]

If you are able to show any applications or common usages of a laptop that benefit from the wide screen I would be curious.

Well, you may have missed some of them that were mentioned earlier in this thread. Also look in this thread, starting from that post and onward: http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.ph ... 59#p655859

I can add a couple more examples to what was mentioned where wider screens have their merits:

• Software development and code writing benefits from longer lines and allows you to similarly position various controls, such as project directory trees to the side, and still have enough horizontal space.
• Certain Excel spreadsheets tend to grow wide more than tall
• While you are right about most webpages not built for widescreen, a wider screen can allow you to have a browser open and an IM window to the side, pretty conveniently.

These are just off the top of my head. Now, you can follow my posts and you will see that I am far from being a widescreen advocate. The point I always try to make in such discussions is that anyone who claims that there is some objective global advantage to one form factor over the other is just dead wrong. It is all 100% subjective, and depends on personal preferences as much as specific applications at hand.

[tombaker]

The point I always try to make in such discussions is that anyone who claims that there is some objective global advantage to one form factor over the other is just dead wrong. It is all 100% subjective, and depends on personal preferences as much as specific applications at hand.

Sorry but the point you are always trying to educate on, is error. Form has function. The needs of laptop users are not quite as diverse as you suggest. We already agree that most programs, and Internet are 4:3. As link shows, for those applications (which are the needs of most laptop users) a 12 inch matching a 15....and a 14 matching an 18 inch, shows a giant advantage for 4:3.....if you are concerned about size of the portable computer, which we ALL are.

Yes there are some exceptions where a widescreen has an advantage for real world usage. But as I said, the vast majority are better served by 4:3. You are using a philosophy class argument believing everything is 100% subjective.

I get the every absolute statement is absolutely false philosophical argument you attempted. However you break that with your "dead wrong" and "100% subjective" assertions.

How about this:
The vast majority of content viewed on laptops is 4:3 based, 16:9 widescreens are inferior in displaying 4:3 content because inch for inch diagonal screens will make the content significantly smaller on the widescreen. To get the same sized image the widescreen will need to be significantly larger, more costly, heavier, consume more power.

Size of output, the burdens of needing to scroll all the time, cost and weight, are objective measures.

Widescreen proliferation is much like TN LCD technology proliferation, has more to do with manufacturing yields and costs, that it does benefits.

(note:this thread is titled with "Rant" within)

[dr_st]

The needs of laptop users are not quite as diverse as you suggest.

Whenever someone claims that they know other people's needs better than those other people, is when I know that the conversation is pointless and is going nowhere fast.

I'll leave it at that, except for one thing:

We already agree that most programs, and Internet are 4:3

I agreed to no such thing, and I think this statement is false.

[pianowizard]

most programs, and Internet are 4:3.

Not exactly. What's true is that most programs and web pages are designed to be narrower than 1024 pixels, to accommodate 1024x768, 1024x600 and 1024x576 screens -- the last two of these are widescreen, found on most netbooks.

The 14.1 1400 x 1050 is near perfect for a general laptop.

Didn't you say that on a widescreen, "You put a web browser on full screen and you just have stuff separated by more spaces horizontally"? Since web pages are no more than 1024 pixels wide, wouldn't you have too much wasted horizontal space when you maximize a browser on a 1400x1050 screen? But now you say 1400x1050 is "near perfect"?

XGA for 12.1 is easy to read, and the keyboards on the X series are easy to type with.

Would be even easier to type if the 12.1" screen was wide, since that would allow the keyboard to be larger.

[loyukfai]

Again, I want to chime in... : )

This time, just 2 points...

1. *In my opinions*, the current state that the majority of desktop applications and webpages are better suited in 4:3 has as much, if not more, to do with legacy than practicality.
   
   I, for one, am seeing more and more of them being adjusted for widescreens.
2. Therefore, given what're being sold in the stores these days, it's probably only a matter of time that the majority of desktop applications and webpages to be adapted for widescreens instead of 4:3.

It seems to be inevitable that a discussion about screen ratio turns into a philosophy and borderline religious argument, isn't it?

But I can understand why some people are so outspoken about it - When someone has to work 8-10 hours at the computer a day and his usage is suited to a certain ratio and he is used to it.

It could be very upsetting when one sees/has a problem but nobody cares about it.

As for me, I just try to adjust the various elements to suite my needs more. Sometimes I write to the developers and tell them about the insufficiency of their UI designs (and other things) if it really irritates me but that's it. I think if enough people are irritate and voice out, most of the times, the developer/market will adapt accordingly. If not, then I probably have to do with it.

Just like many other things in life.

OTOH, very often one's problem is a non-issue for another.

Cheers.

[Eudoxus]

Sometimes I really wonder, what makes people to make so much fuss about the aspect ratio of their laptop's panel. Well, I would agree that there are some differences and in some scenarios they may matter. But are these differences that important? As for me I use to work on both type of screen on regular basis, as I use my X61s in my job and T500 (WSXGA+) when I am home. And I barely notice the difference as far as the aspect ratio is concerned. What I do notice is that X61s has rather poor screen in terms of color reproduction, viewing angles and resolution.

[rumbero]

Sometimes I really wonder, what makes people to make so much fuss about the aspect ratio of their laptop's panel.

It's actually more a matter of missing vertical pixels versus pointlessly inflated horizontal pixels than just the ratio in itself. What people have grown used to refer to as "widescreen" is actually rather a "smallscreen" from the vertical pixel point of view. I certainly have no trouble viewing any widescreen optimized content on my 1600x1200 UXGA panel, as the horizontal pixel amount usually matches that pretty fine. If people like and prefer wide smallscreens, and have no problem with these being forced down their throat, then more power to them! But it is a true pity that there is no more other choice, especially since people like me consider a resolution and form factor of 1600x1200 vastly superior for their own purposes.

Personally, i luckily don't rely so much on CPU or GPU power for my daily schedule, but rather on well sized/proportioned and ergonomic screen real estate. Therefore i will probably stick to my T61+ UXGA Flexview Frankenpads for a long time to come without any major shortcomings, and i have made sure to have an equal replacement machine with the same characteristics safely stashed away in the attic. Lenovo unfortunatley left me no other choice than helping myself.

[tombaker]

The needs of laptop users are not quite as diverse as you suggest.

Whenever someone claims that they know other people's needs better than those other people, is when I know that the conversation is pointless and is going nowhere fast.

I'll leave it at that, except for one thing:

We already agree that most programs, and Internet are 4:3

I agreed to no such thing, and I think this statement is false.[/quote]

If you think the conversation is going nowhere fast, and you recognize this often, perhaps your own mirror might give you the image of the core problem frustrating the discussion. Clearly attempting to shoehorn my remarks into the misrepresentations above is not helpful.

I am saying that form follows function. That books have a format, that reading web pages have a format, that writing text for documents, are all better served on a 4:3 format, because of objective items, such as size of font, needs of scrolling, weight and power consumption the display. The needs of end users is knowable.

I sure thought you agreed when you said “While you are right about most webpages not built for widescreen” that you agreed that the web is not better served by a widescreen. Are most programs needing widescreens, or optimized for them, or benefit from them?
End users are using Outlook, Word, the WWW, for a large chunk of their tasks, no?

[JaneL]

OK, this is beginning to resemble an OS war, so chill out guys.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tombaker]

Sometimes I really wonder, what makes people to make so much fuss about the aspect ratio of their laptop's panel.[/quote] It's actually more a matter of missing vertical pixels versus pointlessly inflated horizontal pixels than just the ratio in itself. What people have grown used to refer to as "widescreen" is actually rather a "smallscreen" from the vertical pixel point of view. I certainly have no trouble viewing any widescreen optimized content on my 1600x1200 UXGA panel, as the horizontal pixel amount usually matches that pretty fine. If people like and prefer wide smallscreens, and have no problem with these being forced down their throat, then more power to them! But it is a true pity that there is no more other choice, especially since people like me consider a resolution and form factor of 1600x1200 vastly superior for their own purposes.

Personally, i luckily don't rely so much on CPU or GPU power for my daily schedule, but rather on well sized/proportioned and ergonomic screen real estate. Therefore i will probably stick to my T61+ UXGA Flexview Frankenpads for a long time to come without any major shortcomings, and i have made sure to have an equal replacement machine with the same characteristics safely stashed away in the attic. Lenovo unfortunatley left me no other choice than helping myself.
---------------
These are good points, as well as the poster above who points out that users are at these devices for hours on end each and every day. I don't have any need to see widescreens removed, I just have a need to have standard definition screens available and continued to be developed.

When it comes down to the simple specifications, the 16:9 format displays smaller USEFUL images. Most web and most programs remain optimized for 4:3, and most of the drivers of content will not change that. WORD, PDFs, written content, photography, are the drivers. There is another driver I forgot, and that is PC gaming, which widescreens are superior, as the output is being offered at 16:9 format.

But back to OP. Here is the X61t vs the new standards of Lenovo, in 14 and 15.6, compared also to the T60 14 inch. (sadly the 16:9 is displacing the 16:10 rapidly)

For browser content: (or a PDF, or a Word document, or a Powerpoint)
The IBM 12 easily beats the Lenovo 14, and is close to Lenovo 15.6
The IBM 14 easily beat the Lenovo 15.6

http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?8cf4 ... 6aa233c1f6

A HDTV either distorts SD for has tons of wasted screen. This is essentially the same for laptops. But with laptops you have portability and weight as a major consideration. Look how the X60t competes with much larger machines, and that is because standard ratio.

We all can have preferences, but form has function, and the majority of needs are better served by the 4:3 form. Widescreens have won on the PC though, I don't think there is a current 4:3 laptop to be bought. But 4:3 has won on the tablet side meaning WWW is not going to optimize for widescreens, soon or likely ever. Web designers are not going to abandon the tablet market with widescreen focused designs.

So summing it all up. 16:10 for a laptop sucks, the new standard 16:9 sucks more, a decent sized group of users is sitting on 2-5 year old machines hoping for some choices to come back in the standard format besides tablets. The onslaught of the ultrabooks coming, hopefully will have some options.

YMMV, but you still have to turn the same wheel, and work on the same roads.

[ajkula66]

tombaker wrote:

I don't have any need to see widescreens removed, I just have a need to have standard definition screens available and continued to be developed.

I'm sure that quite a few people - myself included - share this sentiment. That's not the direction the world is turning, though...

Widescreens have won on the PC though, I don't think there is a current 4:3 laptop to be bought.

The last 4:3 laptop standing, AFAIK:

http://www.panasonic.com/business/tough ... ook-31.asp

A very interesting and powerful machine...with numerous great features (if you need them) and many serious limitations if you're intent on using it as a "conventional" laptop...

[pianowizard]

tombaker, your whole argument is based on the assumption that every user likes to maximize the active window. But as several of us mentioned earlier in this thread, some people like to view two windows side by side, and for this widescreen is better than 4:3. IMO, the only 4:3 laptop resolution that easily supports side-by-side viewing is 1600x1200, but for widescreen laptops, we have 1600x900, 1680x945, 1680x1050, 1920x1080, and 1920x1200. Among these, 1600x900 can be found on laptops that weigh under 3 lbs. By contrast, the lightest 1600x1200 ever made was well over 5 lbs.

That said, I agree that vertical real estate is important as well, which is why my main computer has not only a 30" 2560x1600 widescreen, but three 24" 1200x1920 tallscreens as well. When I need to view many lines of text, I use the tallscreens, whereas when I want side-by-side windows or need to view a super wide Excel spreadsheet, I use the widescreen.

On slate tablets, virtually all applications are designed to be viewed full screen, and so 4:3 makes a lot of sense. I have an HP Touchpad and like its 4:3 form factor.

[lophiomys]

In full support for the classic 4:3 form factor for Thinkpads.

Additionally following argument comes to my mind:
The only argument I ever heard from Lenovo sales personal and supporters in the forums was,
that they would use the wide screen format because it is cheaper, or because they could not get 4:3 (IPS) screens on the OEM market.
They never pretended, they would do it for customers who would want to place two windows side by side.

In the end it is a matter of limited choice, which is heavily disgruntling regular customers.

Everyone would be happy, if Lenovo would just have kept up the the good standards with
a traditional Thinkpad model line (X,T), and all colorful widescreen experiments they could have
have done with the new IdeaPad series.

[dr_st]

Everyone would be happy, if Lenovo would just have kept up the the good standards with
a traditional Thinkpad model line (X,T), and all colorful widescreen experiments they could have
have done with the new IdeaPad series.

Two remarks:

"Everyone" is a pretty big exaggeration, IMO. As you see, there are enough advocates of widescreens that still want to use Thinkpads, not Ideapads.

I would replace the "Lenovo would" with "Lenovo could". I believe that the LCD panel offerings available to them made this nigh impossible. It wasn't a matter of desire or lack thereof, but of part availability.

[lophiomys]

"Everyone" is a pretty big exaggeration, IMO. As you see, there are enough advocates of widescreens that still want to use Thinkpads, not Ideapads.

There are also enough advocates who still want to use Classic 4:3 with "real" Thinkpads. (This argument is cyclic reflective, (or is it reflexive?). )

I would replace the "Lenovo would" with "Lenovo could". I believe that the LCD panel offerings available to them made this nigh impossible. It wasn't a matter of desire or lack thereof, but of part availability.

Sorry for not beeing a native English speaker. I still refute this argument, as I did earlier already.
IMHO Lenovo would be big enough in terms of company size and funds, to get it sourced on the OEM market.
...

no time to continue ranting right now....

[automobus]

I would replace the "Lenovo would" with "Lenovo could". I believe that the LCD panel offerings available to them made this nigh impossible. It wasn't a matter of desire or lack thereof, but of part availability.

12.1 inch, XGA, 4-by-3 screens are still being produced today. I believe that when Lenovo chose to update the X Series to widescreen, they made the decision to reduce cost, not because the screens were unavailable.

Screens of such size and density have been used in every X Series model from X20 through X61. Now that many people have adjusted to twelve-inch WXGA, they might think XGA has too few pixels, or they might prefer higher pixel density. I still love XGA. Finer dots are nice in a pen computer, but I think XGA is still perfect for laptops.

[dr_st]

There are also enough advocates who still want to use Classic 4:3 with "real" Thinkpads.

Differentiate between "enough" and "everyone".

[lophiomys]

I did. I ment that if there would be widescreen and 4:3 models then "everyone" would be happy.