T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Message

Vonfeffer · #1 Post by **Vonfeffer** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:17 pm

Hello, I know there have been lots of discussions on this subject already, but I was thinking of buying a T420 and I'm very confused because there are all kinds of opinions on the forum and outside it, some good some bad. Now I would like the opinion of the long run thinkpadders on it to sort things out. My first thinkpad was a T42, folowed by a T43, then a SL410 (not so good building quality) and a T61. I would like to know how the T420 compares to the T43 and T61 build quality. I ask this because there are no stores here in Brazil selling those so I can't go check it for myself... So please feel free to share your experiences. One review I read that made me almost give up on buying it was this:

From Kaze22:

"The T420 is MASSIVE. When I first saw it I swear i thought it was a W520.
The T61 when placed side by side to a T420, is actually smaller. I don't know how the T420 got bigger since all the internal components should be smaller than 4 years ago.
The Tablet Laptops have not changed, I agree but then again, the Tablets have not dropped in price.
They are still expensive luxury laptops.

My new X220T is the same material as my old Tablet. So yes that part is true.

But man, has the T420 changed. They changed the Matte finish lid, it used to be made of some special material that allowed for better Wireless penetration. If you look at the old T61 or T60, you'll notice that the matte finish actually has small sparkling dust like particles in it.
The bottom baseplate has been replaced by GIJOE plastic the stuff they use to make MacDonald kids meal toys.
It used to be made of a highgrade material that was very similar to metal. The X301 actually used a metal backplate with matte paint over it.
The new hinges are gigantic compared to the old ones, and etc.

Oh and the fingerprint readers. How can I forget about that.
The old Thinkpads had the most regal looking fingerprint readers on any laptop. They had shiny steel bevels, and a sophisticated dark brown tinted glass overlay. They looked like something Batman would use.
The new Fingerprint readers look like something you get free from a CrackJack Box. Batman would not approve.

I wish I had a picture of the old reader vs the new reader. If anything says it all, its the fingerprint readers, the old ones looked like it was made in Sweden, the new one looks like it was made by the cheapest manufacturer in China. The fingerprint reader says it all."

Thanks in advance

Tercio

wolfman · #2 Post by **wolfman** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:29 pm

Vonfeffer wrote:"The T420 is MASSIVE. When I first saw it I swear i thought it was a W520.
The T61 when placed side by side to a T420, is actually smaller. I don't know how the T420 got bigger since all the internal components should be smaller than 4 years ago.

I disagree with the above. I have a T420 (see sig below) and a W520 for work. The W520 is a good bit bigger and bulkier than the T420. I've previously had a T60 and T500 (from work - as well as the other Thinkpads in my sig which were personal machines) and I'd say there isn't a great deal of difference between it and the T420. And i paid for the T420 and I'm cheap, so I'd complain if I was shorted in the deal.

I can't speak to the finger print reader as my T420 doesn't have that feature (I didn't want it when I configured mine to order, it's always seemed like a gimmick to me).

Overall I'm pleased with my T420. It's a Thinkpad, does the job and while I could likely nit pick a thing or two, it's clearly better than the machines i see in the mall - whose screens easy bend and flex, show pressure points, feel like they have super cheap touch pads, crappy keyboards / layouts, etc.

Vonfeffer · #3 Post by **Vonfeffer** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:20 am

Thanks Wolfman

But what about screen res.? Do which one do you have?

wolfman · #4 Post by **wolfman** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:46 pm

I have the 1600x900 display in my T420. It's fine, definitely not as nice as an IPS or a higher end panel. It works well for what I use it for, editing text and browsing. However, *most* of the time I use my T420 in a dock attached to an HP ZR24W 24 inch 1920x1200 IPS display.

ThinkRob · #5 Post by **ThinkRob** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:51 pm

But man, has the T420 changed. They changed the Matte finish lid, it used to be made of some special material that allowed for better Wireless penetration. If you look at the old T61 or T60, you'll notice that the matte finish actually has small sparkling dust like particles in it.
The bottom baseplate has been replaced by GIJOE plastic the stuff they use to make MacDonald kids meal toys.
It used to be made of a highgrade material that was very similar to metal. The X301 actually used a metal backplate with matte paint over it.

There's a lot of wrong information here.

First: the lid is made of CFRP. The T410's lid was made of HEPC (high-elasticity polycarbonate). The T420's lid is thinner and (in my experience) stiffer. I suspect that the poster is bemoaning the loss of the magnesium lid frame (aka. the lid's "roll cage") which was found on the T61 and T400, although (again in my experience) the switch to LED backlighting has reduced the importance of this feature. Furthermore, the elimination of metal in the lid cover should *improve* wireless reception. Actually, on that note, the older T4x/T60 designs with the all-magnesium top covers? *Way* worse for wireless reception than plastic. Perhaps you noticed that the older generations had cut-outs or ridges to allow for wireless penetration while the newer models don't? That's why.

The lid finish is (as far as I can tell) the same as on the T410. It is a little different than some previous models, but the finish has varied over the years (compare a 600X, a T22, and a T43 side-by-side some time), so I wouldn't read too much into that. It may be a fair criticism on his part though -- as an aesthetic issue I can certainly understand preferring one particular finish over another. Personally I'm happy with all of them since I don't really care much past wanting it to be a dark, matte color -- and all of them fit that criteria.

Yes, the bottom cover material's been replaced by "GI JOE plastic". Only it hasn't. The bottom cover is CFRP, same as the previous generation (T410), and the one before it (T400), and the one before that (T61), and the one before that (T60). From the T60 through today's T430, the T-series ThinkPads have had a magnesium frame in the bottom portion of the laptop. The design's varied, but it's been there for the last 6 years. Before that? No internal frame, and the T4x-series suffered for it.

So as to the high-grade material it "used to be made of"? That would be pretty much the same material it's currently made of.

The X series ThinkPads (and the 's' variants in the T series) use a magnesium bottom cover, I've been told for weight reduction (i.e. you can get the same strength with a thin piece of magnesium alloy as you can with a thicker piece of plastic).

The T4x felt -- to many users such as Kaze22 -- like a high quality product. They were a well-designed, pretty, and very expensive product. They also tended to run quite hot and died in large numbers due to motherboard flex, something prevented by engineering improvements in successive, "cheaper-feeling", less-costly models. Moral of the story? Judging the reliability or durability of something by how it feels is not always the wisest decision.

I've owned pretty much every T series made except for the T30, and have owned a number of T-series precursors (600 series, and 700 series). The T420 is one of my favorite T series for a number of reasons, and I'd rate its sturdiness as phenomenal. I've travelled thousands of miles with mine, used it daily for several months at a time, and while I have a whole list of nitpicks with it, I'd be lying if I said I didn't absolutely love how well it's served me.

In truth, you'll probably find the materials in the T420 to feel cheaper than the T43 that you had. I know the T4x-series machines that I've owned have felt quite high quality. And you know what? The T420's materials probably *are* cheaper to use. But they serve their purpose very, very well: they're strong enough to help keep your laptop in good working condition, they look sleek and suitably professional, they're light, and they seem to hold up well to the stress placed on them by the case design (something which can't be said for some previous ThinkPad models' case materials.) Sometimes better engineering and better technology allow you to use "worse" components yet get a better result. Yes, they may "feel" worse -- but I don't think that Lenovo prioritizes the "feel" of a laptop's case materials over its price, performance, reliability, and durability. There are companies that do, and if that's a more important property than the aforementioned then I would recommend you consider those brands instead.

So, in summary: don't judge a ThinkPad by somebody else's opinion of its cover.

(... I wonder apt has finished installing its updates? 'cause that's why *I'm* still at the office typing this up. What's your excuse?

)

Vonfeffer · #6 Post by **Vonfeffer** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:46 pm

Thanks for your reply ThinkRob!

Vonfeffer · #7 Post by **Vonfeffer** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:55 pm

Ok I bought it! But while I wait it to arrive let me ask you this: Have you guys been successfull buying a cable to convert display port to HDMI that works (audio and video)?

Tks

wolfman · #8 Post by **wolfman** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:11 pm

Multiple folks report this one works with various Thinkpads: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002CS ... 00_details (please note, I haven't tried it myself as I don't need an HDMI connection from my T420). Good luck with your T420!

Vonfeffer · #9 Post by **Vonfeffer** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:51 pm

Thanks Wolfman. There are some bluetooth modules on sale over eBay, are they reliable? And if I add the module does the screen comes with the bluetooth led behind the sticker? The only option I had when buying it was bluetoothless...

Tks

Vonfeffer · #10 Post by **Vonfeffer** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:03 pm

One more thing, is it possible to change the screen resolution from 1366 x 768 to 1600 x 900 just by swaping displays or you have to change the flat also?

Tks

ThinkRob · #11 Post by **ThinkRob** » Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:25 pm

Vonfeffer wrote:One more thing, is it possible to change the screen resolution from 1366 x 768 to 1600 x 900 just by swaping displays or you have to change the flat also?

Huh?

The flat what?

ajkula66 · #12 Post by **ajkula66** » Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:15 pm

ThinkRob wrote:
Huh?

The flat what?

I'm pretty sure that OP meant "flat cable" as in "LCD cable" but I may be wrong...

ThinkRob · #13 Post by **ThinkRob** » Wed Sep 19, 2012 9:09 pm

ajkula66 wrote: I'm pretty sure that OP meant "flat cable" as in "LCD cable" but I may be wrong...

Ah. I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that one. Does the 768 screen use a 40-pin LVDS cable?

Vonfeffer · #14 Post by **Vonfeffer** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:12 pm

Hi, yes I ment the flat cable that connects the LCD to the motherboard. Yes it uses the 40-pin LVDS cable, but there is a guy on another forum who changed only the LCD and the image got very poor although it recognized the new resolution.

ThinkRob · #15 Post by **ThinkRob** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:18 pm

Vonfeffer wrote:Hi, yes I ment the flat cable that connects the LCD to the motherboard. Yes it uses the 40-pin LVDS cable, but there is a guy on another forum who changed only the LCD and the image got very poor although it recognized the new resolution.

Well for the T420 40-pin is 40-pin as far as connector form-factor is concerned, so I can't imagine why that would cause an issue unless the pinouts are different (which I highly doubt). Plus, if it could grab the EDID from the panel then at least some of the pins are right.

If you get the datasheet for the panel you're replacing you should be able to compare the LVDS pin-out with the one from the datasheet of the panel you're planning on replacing it with; my money's on them being identical though.

Vonfeffer · #16 Post by **Vonfeffer** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:33 pm

Here's the link to the guy who replaced the 1366x768 to the 1600x900 one. His forum ligin is awry. Check out his experience.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/lenovo/ ... nel-4.html

Edit: Notebook has arrived. First impressions - Very well built but the sceen door effect is very visible... The screen is worse than the one on my SL410...

ajkula66 · #17 Post by **ajkula66** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:34 pm

Hate to tell you, but none of the screens used on T4xx series are anything to write home about.

Yes, you'll get more screen real estate with 1600x900. However, higher the resolution - more evident the quality (or lack thereof) of the LCD itself...

All of these screens are garbage in my opinion, but YMMV.

Good luck.

ThinkRob · #18 Post by **ThinkRob** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:55 pm

Vonfeffer wrote:Here's the link to the guy who replaced the 1366x768 to the 1600x900 one. His forum ligin is awry. Check out his experience.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/lenovo/ ... nel-4.html

It's kinda hard to tell what he's referring to. My guess is that he screwed up something during the install, but who knows. He never followed up and there's not a lot of info there in the first place...

I wouldn't say the panels are garbage (that phrase is reserved for the 13.3" CMO panels that shipped in the second-gen MacBooks in 2007 and the X30x's TMD display), but yeah, they're not exactly stellar. "Servicable, but ugly" would be how I'd term them.

Vonfeffer · #19 Post by **Vonfeffer** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:40 pm

Which screen brand would be a good quality one to use as the T420 original replacement? Any suggestions?

wolfman · #20 Post by **wolfman** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:02 pm

This might offer some suggestions on the screen options: http://forum.notebookreview.com/lenovo/ ... panel.html. Unfortunately (or fortunately for me), I use my T420 in a dock most of the time connected to an HP ZR24W 24 inch s-ips 1920x1200 panel, so I don't mind that my panel has a bit of screen door effect - but likely would care more if I used it more often.

Vonfeffer · #21 Post by **Vonfeffer** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:09 pm

Thanks Wolfman. Is it possible to fit a ivy bridge processor on a T420? What about 16GB of RAM? I was browsing and found this odd thing:
http://www.cnet.com/laptops/lenovo-thin ... 15248.html

Tks

#22 Post by **ZaZ** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:04 pm

I believe Intel has stated that Sandy to Ivy for mobile CPUs is a no-go.

Vonfeffer · #23 Post by **Vonfeffer** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:41 pm

I made it! Changed the display and its all good now!

wolfman · #24 Post by **wolfman** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:09 pm

Vonfeffer wrote:What about 16GB of RAM?

Yes, you can use 16gb of RAM in the T420 (see my sig) - I've been doing that for 6 months or so now with no issues. And RAM is only getting cheaper!

dxps26 · #25 Post by **dxps26** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 3:12 pm

I've had a varying experience with the T420. I bought it from a Brick-and-mortar store (J&R in NYC) because i wanted to feel the product before i laid down the cash for it. My First T420 was a disaster-keyboard died, warping case, inexcusable service from Lenovo...it's chronicled in this thread -

http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=103340

Once the matter was wrapped up, and I was presented with a brand-new replacement unit, couple with a free upgrade to a 3-year NBD OnSite Warranty, things have been fantastic. The Case is tough, well-built and designed to take a fair beating. The LCD lid is solid and quite rigid, the base is flex free and the keyboard is superb. The LCD Screen leaves a lot to be desired if you have certain workloads such as photo editing or anything colour-sensitive. the resolution (1600X900) and pixel pitch, sharpness, brightness and clarity are fine. Contrast, colour, and vividness are sub-par. That being said, I use my T420 with a Dell Ultrasharp 2407WFP-HC which despite the ghosting, has fantastic colour reproduction and brightness, and works for me. There are better screens out there, but I got mine for $150, so I'm satisfied.

IMO, Lenovo really should have used a better LCD unit on this machine - it's probably the largest seller out of all the T/W/X series and can be seen as an example of quality. Hopefully the 'retina' macbook will force them to get back to their AFFS/IPS hi-res roots.

Noise, vibration and heat issues are practically non-existent for this machine, and it gets even better if you swap out the noisy HDD for a Solid-state drive. Coming from a 5-year old, well-cared for Toshiba to the Thinkpad was night and day. the Macbooks are quieter, but hotter.

The only nitpick i would have is the 'Lenovo' logo on the lid - which by the way is a nicely made, laser-cut steel emblem. Just don't use a fibrous cloth to wipe your lid, as the 'e' in the logo is particularly sharp, and can catch onto fibres...and if you're not careful, can tear up that little 'e' monogram and ruin the looks of the lid. so always use a dense microfiber cloth to carefully wipe down your machine, and not be an idiot like me.

16gb of RAM is IMO overkill, but it's fairly cheap overkill at $75. Upgrade to 8gb and spend money on a high-performance SSD, such as the Intel 520 series or OCZ Vertex 4, if you want to see your dollars translate to better performance. Swap the HDD from the main bay to the UltraBay, and stow the optical drive in your bag for the odd time you really need it.

wolfman · #26 Post by **wolfman** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:52 pm

dxps26 wrote:16gb of RAM is IMO overkill, but it's fairly cheap overkill at $75.

It depends on your use case. For example, just last week I was prototyping a server build for work and had 3 VMs running on top of my host OS. 2 of the VM's required 3gb of RAM each and 1 of the VM's required 6gb. So that left 4gb left over for my host operating system. If you need the RAM, you need the RAM (I sold my T410 and bought the T420 specifically so I could use 16gb of RAM).

Vonfeffer · #27 Post by **Vonfeffer** » Sun Sep 30, 2012 4:00 pm

Thanks for the insight! The screen I bought is N140BGE-L42 CMN. Even the samsung had some screen door effect...

Edit: The brand is Chimei Innolux and the contrast ratio is 600:1 instead of the 400:1 from AUO.

ThinkRob · #28 Post by **ThinkRob** » Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:21 pm

Vonfeffer wrote: Edit: The brand is Chimei Innolux and the contrast ratio is 600:1 instead of the 400:1 from AUO.

What's the measured contrast ratio? I ask because there is often quite a difference between the actual contrast of a screen and what's listed on the spec-sheet...

Vonfeffer · #29 Post by **Vonfeffer** » Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:13 pm

Ehh, how do I find out the measured contrast ratio?

ThinkRob · #30 Post by **ThinkRob** » Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:35 pm

Vonfeffer wrote:Ehh, how do I find out the measured contrast ratio?

You can either measure it yourself if you have the right equipment or you can find a review of the screen by someone who does.

T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Re: T420 build quality. Is it good after all?

Who is online