T430u

[khtse]

This looks interesting:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/8/322899 ... nouncement

I was excited about the X1 Carbon, but not having a 1080+ resolution, nor IPS panel, makes that high price hard to swallow. This T430u seems to fit right between T430s and X1 Carbon in terms of size, and it comes with a way more affordable T series price tag. The down side is that the screen resolution seems low, I hope a 1600 x 900 option is available.

T series have grown too fat since the T60. They used to be thin and light, at least with T4x and earlier.

[wolfman]

T series have grown too fat since the T60. They used to be thin and light, at least with T4x and earlier.

Really?

The T40 has these dimensions / weight:
12.24" x 10.04" x 1.047" and weighs 5.07 pounds

The T60 has these dimensions / weight:
12.2" x 10.0" x 1.0-1.2" and weighs 5.2 pounds

The T420 has these dimensions / weight:
13.4" x 9.4" x 1.1" and weighs 4.84 pounds

I'm not seeing how they used to be noticeably thinner (1.047 vs 1.1 inches) or noticeably lighter (T40 weighed more than T420). The slightly wider frame is offset somewhat by the slightly shallower depth and 100% related to the switch from 4:3 to 16:9 screen.

But I guess it's in the eye of the beholder.

[wolfman]

That said, good deal on the T430u being at a lower price than originally planned. The ability to go to a higher resolution and up to 16gb of ram would be nice as well.

[Rose]

wolfman: comparing the 4:3's T-series to the T420 in terms of dimensions is not fair. The screen size of the 4:3-series is noticeably bigger. The T4x compared to the T60 was also sleeker because it had shaved of edges. It just feels smoother.

[pianowizard]

wolfman: comparing the 4:3's T-series to the T420 in terms of dimensions is not fair. The screen size of the 4:3-series is noticeably bigger. The T4x compared to the T60 was also sleeker because it had shaved of edges. It just feels smoother.

Well said. A few numbers to illustrate the problem of the growing T Series:

Surface area of the T420's 14.0" 16:9 screen: 83.75 square inches
Surface area of the T40's 14.1" 4:3 screen: 95.43 square inches
**In order for a 16:9 screen to have the same area as a 14.1" 4:3 screen, it would need to be 14.944"!

Approximate volume of the T420: 138.6 cubic inches
Approximate volume of the T40: 128.7 cubic inches

Thus, though the T40 had a larger screen, it was actually more compact than the T420.

[khtse]

Oh well, perhaps I should have left out that personal comment about T series fatness. Anyway, can we go back to talk about the T430u?

It seems that one advantage of getting thicker than the X1 carbon is that now they can fit a nvidia graphic into it. It seems like Lenovo had a press conference yesterday as I found many hand on photos of the t430u on many sites. It isn't as thin as I thought by looking as the press release photos, but still thin a light.

Anyone found any side by side comparison of the t430u and x1 carbon?

[Art Vandelay]

This looks interesting:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/8/322899 ... nouncement

I was excited about the X1 Carbon, but not having a 1080+ resolution, nor IPS panel, makes that high price hard to swallow. This T430u seems to fit right between T430s and X1 Carbon in terms of size, and it comes with a way more affordable T series price tag. The down side is that the screen resolution seems low, I hope a 1600 x 900 option is available.

T series have grown too fat since the T60. They used to be thin and light, at least with T4x and earlier.

X1 Carbon does have an IPS screen. I don't think the T430u does. Its inexpensive, but the specs are disappointing. Low res screen. I much prefer my T430s, although I am thinking about getting an X1 for the better display.

[ThinkRob]

X1 Carbon does have an IPS screen..

No, it doesn't.

[yak]

This looks interesting:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/8/322899 ... nouncement

Hi khtse. Please search before posting, I posted the same link 20 hours earlier:
http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=105559