New ThinkPad T431s leaked

[pianowizard]

One could also look at it the other way around, of course. What features have been lost:

Fewer usb ports.
No user replaceable battery.
Fewer RAM slots (and lower maximum RAM capacity).
No more convient user accessible panels on the bottom for RAM, hard drive, etc., replacement.
No more ultrabay/optical drive.
No wifi physical switch (I think).
And of course the destruction of the traditional keyboard layout and design, as well as the destruction of the touchpad and button design.

Most of these sacrifices actually make sense for an ultraportable laptop, like the X1 Carbon, but not for the T Series. I don't understand why Lenovo is making the X and T Series more and more alike, considering that they are supposed to serve very different purposes. Perhaps Lenovo wants to eventually consolidate all Thinkpads into just one Series?

[dr_st]

Perhaps Lenovo wants to eventually consolidate all Thinkpads into just one Series?

Which will have one huge glass trackpad with a single button, and one single LED indicator.

[yak]

Which will have one huge glass trackpad with a single button, and one single LED indicator.

Oh yeah, they will integrate the keyboard with the trackpad. Just like they did with trackpoint buttons.

[cb474]

Most of these sacrifices actually make sense for an ultraportable laptop, like the X1 Carbon, but not for the T Series. I don't understand why Lenovo is making the X and T Series more and more alike, considering that they are supposed to serve very different purposes. Perhaps Lenovo wants to eventually consolidate all Thinkpads into just one Series?

Exactly, as I say above, if the T431s were just the X2 or whatever, fine. But it makes no sense for the T Series that has always targeted the power users. And why does it have to be an either/or? Lenovo could have both the X2 (whatever) series and the more traditional T series and make everyone happy.

I will also note that although it's true, as you say, that these sacrifices make sense of an ultraportable, they only make sense if you gain something. What is gained with the T431s? It's a little thinner and .4 lbs lighter than the T430s. But it's really pretty fat and heavy for the ultraportable category. At the same time, as I note above, the X301 is just as thin and another .5 lbs lighter and it sacrifices none of these things. So I just don't understand what happened with the T431s. You've got the sacrifice without the benefit. It seems like bad engineering. Smartphones are getting thinner and lighter, while having bigger screens, more powerful processors, and more features. That to me seems like the results of technological and engineering advancement. If this can't be done with laptops, then really nothing has been gained.

*

Which will have one huge glass trackpad with a single button, and one single LED indicator.

And it's called a tablet.

[ajkula66]

You've got the sacrifice without the benefit.

That, my good man, is called "The Lenovo Approach"...

[cb474]

That, my good man, is called "The Lenovo Approach"...

Yeah, sigh, I guess so. It seems like cheaper and going for the lowest common denominator are now the only standards driving ThinkPad design.

I had some hope for Lenovo, in the past. The T61 was okay. And the X301 is an awesome machine. Even the T4xx series has been okay (until the demise of the old keyboard and I wish they had kept an option for a 4:3 screen). But now it seems like it's all trend following and no leadership.

[Cigarguy]

^^^ Yep, I feel the same way. Leadership and Thinkpad's distinctive characteristics no longer part of the plan.

[cb474]

^^^ Yep, I feel the same way. Leadership and Thinkpad's distinctive characteristics no longer part of the plan.

I guess the question now is what was the last true ThinkPad? I'm sure long time ThinkPad users will draw the line in different places (maybe even some don't feel it's over yet). For me it is changing the keyboard layout and design that was the final step into oblivion--although I might have tolerated that without all the additional sacrifices that the T431s imposes. So I guess that makes the T420 series where it all ends, with the T430 series being a passable pseudo-ThinkPad. Although I'm also open to an argument that the T61 with the 4:3 aspect ratio was the last true ThinkPad (and I guess the X61 with the 4:3 ratio stuck around a little longer and even stuck it out without a touchpad).

[Cigarguy]

For me the last desireable (as in I will buy it) is the x220, T420, T520, and W520 series with the classic keyboard. Got a T420 but don't care to much about the touchpad but I'm willing to tolerate it because of the classic keyboard and Sandybridge. The last great TP for me is a flexview 15" screen with a T61 MB (a Frankenpad). Fortunately all the software that I run will run fine on a T61/X61 machine. SSD have helped extend the life of these wonderful machines. When the day come that I need something newer to run the software that I need, then it's time to jump the Thinkpad ship.

[cb474]

Yeah, I still use a 14" 4:3 T61 at home (actually I have two of them). But it got a little heavy to carry around, so I picked up a 1.6 Ghz X301 last year. If I ever want more computing power, I guess I'll get a T420s, even though it's a pound heavier than the X301. I wish I could just upgrade the CPUs on these machines.

It's too bad, I was looking forward to the T4xxs line getting lighter, since it was still a bit beefy to me, compare to the X301. And I was excited to see the T431s did this. But I wasn't expecting it to completely cast out most of everything else I like about the design.

[crashnburn]

WTF? RAM slots gone?

[Ibthink]

No, there is one RAM slot.

[Ibthink]

- doublepost, please delete -

[Caterpillar]

Ok I will definitely move to Apple's Maccraps pro
Shame on you Lenovo

[cb474]

Ok I will definitely move to Apple's Maccraps pro
Shame on you Lenovo

I agree, as I've expressed in my posts above, that the changes to the T431s are deeply unfortunate. But I really don't see how getting a "Maccraps" laptop solves the issue.

They also do not have user replaceable batteries. Nor do they have user replaceable hard drives. They only have 8 Gb of RAM, unless you get the more espensive (over $2000) models. Their ports aren't as good (though to some extent it depends on what you're looking for). There's no 14" model. So you either go with 15" which is significantly heavier than the T431s (and costs at least $2200) or 13.3", which gives you a smaller screen with no weight or size advantage (and is still a lot more expensive). They also have crappy keyboards, with poor key travel. And they have those super annoying glossy screens (albeit the resolution is nice).

When you think about it. It's amazing that Lenovo can screw up the T431s so much and it still has so many advantages over the MacBooks. The only reason I can see to get a MacBook is if you want OS X, you absolutely have to have the retina display (even with it's annoying glossy coating), or you just want the glitz and cache of an Apple product. But purely from a hardware standpoint I think the T431s is significantly better in many ways, while also costing a lot less.

[Caterpillar]

I agree, as I've expressed in my posts above, that the changes to the T431s are deeply unfortunate. But I really don't see how getting a "Maccraps" laptop solves the issue.

They also do not have user replaceable batteries. Nor do they have user replaceable hard drives. They only have 8 Gb of RAM, unless you get the more espensive (over $2000) models. Their ports aren't as good (though to some extent it depends on what you're looking for). There's no 14" model. So you either go with 15" which is significantly heavier than the T431s (and costs at least $2200) or 13.3", which gives you a smaller screen with no weight or size advantage (and is still a lot more expensive). They also have crappy keyboards, with poor key travel. And they have those super annoying glossy screens (albeit the resolution is nice).

When you think about it. It's amazing that Lenovo can screw up the T431s so much and it still has so many advantages over the MacBooks. The only reason I can see to get a MacBook is if you want OS X, you absolutely have to have the retina display (even with it's annoying glossy coating), or you just want the glitz and cache of an Apple product. But purely from a hardware standpoint I think the T431s is significantly better in many ways, while also costing a lot less.

For my needs there is one thing that beats alla advantages of Thinkpad on Macraps: the 16:10 screen
I cannot develop software on a 16:9 screen, it is madness

[dr_st]

Riiiight, 16:9 to 16:10 is such a huge difference.

Complaining about the move from 4:3 to 16:10 is something I can understand. 16:10 to 16:9 is beyond me.

[rumbero]

Complaining about the move from 4:3 to 16:10 is something I can understand. 16:10 to 16:9 is beyond me.

It's about the vertical resolution.

The move from 4:3 to 16:10 was much less a loss than finally moving over to 16:9. Moving to 16:10 didn't result in any loss of vertical pixels, and only added some horizontal space which was either considered superfluous or beneficial, depending on user perspective. But the further step to 16:9 removed the last remaining display advantage for those who do need as much vertical space as possible.

This should hopefully correct your perspective a bit.

[yak]

The move from 4:3 to 16:10 was much less a loss than finally moving over to 16:9. Moving to 16:10 didn't result in any loss of vertical pixels...

Really? You could have a 14" 4:3 T60 with 1400x1050. After the switch to 16:10 the highest resolution on 14" machines was 1440x900 -- 150 pixels less. You had to move up to 15" to be able to get 1680x1050 but these laptops were much bulkier than 14" 4:3 T6x.

[pianowizard]

It depends. Each aspect ratio has/had three or four common resolutions (excluding rare resolutions such as the MBP's "retina" resolutions):

4:3 = 1024x768, 1400x1050, 1600x1200
16:10 = 1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200
16:9 = 1366x768, 1600x900, 1920x1080

If you are just talking about 14", then 4:3 indeed had the best vertical resolution because 14" 16:10 laptops were at most 1440x900 while 14" 16:9 laptops max out at 1600x900. But for the lowest resolutions, 768 was improved to 800 when we transitioned from 4:3 to 16:10, but we went back to 768 with 16:9. For the highest resolutions, 16:10 retained 4:3's maximum of 1200, but 16:9 brought it down to 1080.

I wrote a more detailed discussion a while ago: http://67.214.227.38/~thinkpad/forum/vi ... e9#p609267 (look for my Dec 30, 2010 4:20 pm post)

[cb474]

I agree that the resolution on some of the new widescreen ThinkPads is crappy. 1366 x 768 on a 14" screen is ridiculous.

But I do also think that it's not just a question about resolution. The actual physical dimensions matter too, if one is concerned about useable vertical space. Yeah, extra resolution makes the fonts look better, but at some point things are just too tiny and extra resolution really doesn't make for a more useable space.

So for me it was the switch from 4:3 to 16:10 that was the big stupid move. That resulted in a real loss of useable physical vertical space. But the difference between 16:10 and 16:9 on a 14" screen does to me feel a bit like splitting hairs (though I concede that it is also a step in the wrong direction).

If you want more useable vertical space, then you really should just get a 15" laptop. That's going to make way more of a difference than quibbling about the differences between relatively high degrees of resolution on 14" laptops. In that arena, I supposed the CrapBook does offer something that the T series does not. A relatively lightweigh 15" laptop. Of course there's the T530, if you don't mind the 5.6 lb weight. But then there's the 3.5 lb Samsung 15" ultrabook that's a whole pound lighter than the 15" Crapbook (4.6 lbs). And I believe the Samsung even has a matte display. So I'd start looking at things like that if I wanted light and a big screen.

For me, in the end, it's hard to move away from the ThinkPad keyboard, even with the ruined new layout and fadish "island" style keys. It still has by far the best touch of any laptop keyboard. Although that new touchpad, yuck. That I don't know if I can stand. I hate not having separate physical touchpad buttons.

[rumbero]

You could have a 14" 4:3 T60 with 1400x1050. After the switch to 16:10 the highest resolution on 14" machines was 1440x900 -- 150 pixels less. You had to move up to 15" to be able to get 1680x1050 but these laptops were much bulkier than 14" 4:3 T6x.

The 14" used to describe screen dimensions are not the same between a 4:3 T61 and a 16:10 T61 or a 16:9 T420. These are just marketing terms without any real technical value from a practical point of view.

Comparing the physical height of a 14" 4:3 T61 and a 15" 16:10 T61 surprisingly reveals they are sharing the very same physical vertical dimensions, including the shell. They only differ in regard to physical width and amount of horizontal pixels. This is what i had in mind when i redacted my objection.

The main complaint i have is that the more vertical resolution one needs, the wider and more bulkier a machine has to be acquired. And with 16:9 it has become worse than ever, because 1080 of vertical resolution is ridiculous when compared to the 1050 we used to get with a 14" T61 and any other 15" T model prior to the T420. And if one would like to go 1200 vertical resolution, in comparison to the UXGA luxury we had on a 15" 4:3 T60, the DPI becomes just too much to take for old eyes like mine.

Just for the record, for the work i did and still do, horizontal pixels are simply irrelevant. Could you imagine the outcry if editors started to switch the standard vertical layout of printed stuff like books and newspapers to a horizontal format like it was done for notebook screens? This would simply be impossible to shove down our throats like it was done for notebooks.

[rumbero]

But I do also think that it's not just a question about resolution. The actual physical dimensions matter too, if one is concerned about useable vertical space. Yeah, extra resolution makes the fonts look better, but at some point things are just too tiny and extra resolution really doesn't make for a more useable space.

Absolutely right, it is a matter of proper relation between physical dimensions and resolution. For me, the sweet spot is UXGA on a 4:3 15" T60 (or better Frankenpad), which has just the right DPI value which i am still able to handle without eye strain. I tried 16:10 15.4" WUXGA due to the same vertical pixel amount, but was unable to handle the even finer DPI without scaling.

If you want more useable vertical space, then you really should just get a 15" laptop. That's going to make way more of a difference than quibbling about the differences between relatively high degrees of resolution on 14" laptops.

Thanks, i already enjoy the luxury of two 15" Frankenpads offering me what i need and which i would never be able to buy nowadays. Luckily my work doesn't require any processing power other than my very own brain, so i don't really need to punish myself with one of these incredibly bulky newer T models.

[dr_st]

It's about the vertical resolution.

The move from 4:3 to 16:10 was much less a loss than finally moving over to 16:9.

In pure pixel counts - you are correct. Ignoring the Macbook resolutions, the highest vertical pixel count you could get on 4:3 or 8:5 is 1200, whereas on 16:9 it's 1080.

However, when taking everything into account (not just maximum available resolution, but also things like DPI, size, weight), the move from 4:3 to 8:5 was a much more serious usability hit than 8:5 to 16:9, and some things you said suggest that you feel it as well:

Comparing the physical height of a 14" 4:3 T61 and a 15" 16:10 T61 surprisingly reveals they are sharing the very same physical vertical dimensions, including the shell.

Exactly, so while you gained some horizontal pixels without losing vertical pixels, you were now required to buy a wider, bulkier, heavier machine.

And if one would like to go 1200 vertical resolution, in comparison to the UXGA luxury we had on a 15" 4:3 T60, the DPI becomes just too much to take for old eyes like mine.

You are again comparing 4:3 and 8:5. For most people the practical resolution for 15.4" 8:5 (to stay in the same weight range of a 15" 4:3) would be 1680x1050. Meaning that they lost 150 vertical pixels then and there, and your own testimony supports it:

For me, the sweet spot is UXGA on a 4:3 15" T60 (or better Frankenpad), which has just the right DPI value which i am still able to handle without eye strain. I tried 16:10 15.4" WUXGA due to the same vertical pixel amount, but was unable to handle the even finer DPI without scaling.

So my opinion that the move 4:3-->8:5 is more significant than 8:5-->16:9 stays.

[pianowizard]

For most people the practical resolution for 15.4" 8:5 (to stay in the same weight range of a 15" 4:3) would be 1680x1050.

This really is the key in these discussions. For those of us who are comfortable with 15.4" 1920x1200, it's superior to 15.0" 1600x1200 because I can not only see just as many lines of text, but I can also view two windows side by side easily. Yes, the screen is 1.06 inches wider, but most 15.4" laptops are still just small enough to fit in standard backpacks. Going from 16:10 to 16:9 added another 0.54 inches to the screen width, and at the same time many manufacturers also started to make the bezels thicker. I have never owned a 15.6" laptop but have seen many in stores and they look significantly bulkier than the Latitude D820 I once had. Most 15.6" laptops probably wouldn't fit two of the three backpacks that I own. On top of that, we've lost 120 pixel lines, versus both 1600x1200 and 1920x1200. However, with the move to 15.6" 1080p, side-by-side viewing became easier than on 1600x1200. Also, 15.6" laptops have gotten much lighter recently, most notably the 3.96-lb Vizio CT15 (the Samsung Series 9 is even lighter but it only has 1600x900), and you know how important weight is to me. Taking real estate, size and weight into consideration, I would rather have one of these impressively light 15.6" 1080p laptops than any of the 15.4" 1920x1200 or 15.0" 1600x1200 laptops, all of which were at least ~5.8 lbs.

But I think 15:10 is the perfect aspect ratio, because it's both tall enough for text-intensive applications, and wide enough for viewing two windows and for watching movies. Apple's PowerBook G4 had 15:10, and now the Barnes & Noble Nook HD+ and Google's Chromebook have brought it back. Hopefully we'll see more and more 15:10 laptops.

[Ibthink]

(the Samsung Series 9 is even lighter but it only has 1600x900)

Sidenote: The Series 9 is 15", not 15.6".

No more convient user accessible panels on the bottom for RAM, hard drive, etc., replacement.

The maintenance of the T431s is much easier compared to the T430s, since you have ALL parts under the big magnesium bottom cover (which is also a CRU).

[cb474]

Just for the record, for the work i did and still do, horizontal pixels are simply irrelevant. Could you imagine the outcry if editors started to switch the standard vertical layout of printed stuff like books and newspapers to a horizontal format like it was done for notebook screens? This would simply be impossible to shove down our throats like it was done for notebooks.

Yeah, I completely agree with this. I was making this sort of argument back when they first discontinued the 4:3 screens after the T61. Most of what people do on computers is essentially reading (email, web surfing, coding, writing, etc.). For hundreds of years, people have read in relatively narrow vertical columns. Vertical space is what matters on laptops. It is only with large desktop monitors that you get to the point that you have plenty of vertical space and the extra horizontal space is nice. But this is in 20" plus monitors, which is not practical on a laptop. The only thing extra horizontal space is useful for on laptops is watching video (and maybe spread sheets). The popularization of the widescreen laptop monitor (which I entirely blame on Apple trying to be cool and everyone following the fad) is one of the dumbest design trends ever.

Currently I use the X301. When held up next to my T61 the screen is basically the same physical width but shorter. What would be an awesome thing would be a ThinkPad that's this thin and light, but with a 14" 4:3 screen in it. It seems like there's no reason that could not be done with today's technology. Instead we have the T431s, inferior in almost every way (except the newer processor and motherboard).

It's also worthwhile to point out that no one is making widescreen tablets or smartphones. Yeah, you can turn them and they'll rotate the image. But for almost all purposes people want to use these devices in portrait mode, because when you have a relatively small screen that's what makes sense for reading, which is basically what people are doing.

The maintenance of the T431s is much easier compared to the T430s, since you have ALL parts under the big magnesium bottom cover (which is also a CRU).

I didn't realize the entire bottom comes off. Thanks for pointing that out. I still sort of like the little separate panesl that came off in the old ThinkPad design style. Don't especially see why one or the other way is easier to deal with. Too bad there's not much that's user upgradeable on the T431s. Can you replace the battery once you get in there, by the way?

[Totoro-kun]

Oh yeah, they will integrate the keyboard with the trackpad. Just like they did with trackpoint buttons.

Thats easy, they will evolve touchpad to support 104 gestures and there you go. Its gonna be fun fun fun, right?

[ThinkRob]

I didn't realize the entire bottom comes off. Thanks for pointing that out. I still sort of like the little separate panesl that came off in the old ThinkPad design style. Don't especially see why one or the other way is easier to deal with. Too bad there's not much that's user upgradeable on the T431s. Can you replace the battery once you get in there, by the way?

If anything, I think I'd prefer the single removable cover since it might make it easier to route WLAN cables. Other than that, if durability and maintenance are basically the same, why not? I mean sure, folks won't get to sell the RAM covers that "happen" to have Windows COAs on them anymore... but that's hardly a great loss, is it?

[cb474]

Yeah, I don't really have a practical reason to prefer the old design. I just liked it better. And as Linux user, Windows COAs don't matter to me. When I get a new ThinkPad, the first thing that happens is that Windows gets erased. (Okay, I do make a backup image of it, before formatting the hard drive, in case I need it for something some day. But it's been years since that happened.)