Thinkpadders Rejoice (*LARGE PICS*)

[mydreamlaptop]

Hi bhtooefr, I remembered reading about the screen size limitation somewhere; here is the closest thing I could find:

http://www.computerworld.com/article/24 ... erfly.html

Quote:

"The butterfly had a brief window when it aligned with peoples' desires," says David Hill, a former IBM employee who was around for the 701c's introduction and is now vice president of design at Lenovo.

Here's what happened.

In the mid-'90s, the focus was on ultraportable designs with small footprints. When the 701c came out, IBM was using the biggest display glass it could build (10.4 in. diagonally), but the aspect ratio (4:3) wasn't a good match for the aspect ratio of a full-sized keyboard, especially in that small-footprint form factor. "You had to have a very large border around the display to accommodate a large keyboard," Hill says.

Then displays changed. "We cracked the code on making a larger piece of glass, so the need for having this expanding keyboard became much less," Hill says.

Seems it was a combination of both factors.

[bhtooefr]

I'm reading that as the availability of larger LCDs taking precedence over small form factors nowadays, whereas back in the day, the smaller LCDs that were available allowed for small form factors, and the form factor was more important.

Basically, the market accepted the keyboard compromise that was the 7-row ThinkPad keyboard layout to get a smaller form factor (and less bezel on the same screens as everything else). The 701C was an attempt to get the full 7-row ThinkPad keyboard layout on an even smaller form factor (but with the same screens as bigger ThinkPads), as the market is less likely to accept reduced pitch keyboards.

Then, bigger LCDs came out, and the market went back to bigger (but thinner) form factors.

[Utwig]

See how IBM has done 701c butterfly, they made a custom keyboard solution for form factor to be small.

If Lenovo of past few years had been designing it, they would just slap 5cm 2" bezel around screen.

[bhtooefr]

Well, that's what IBM did on every full-size ThinkPad before the 760C (where a 12.1" screen was available, and filled the lid better).

[Norway Pad]

Sometimes they even had to compromise quite a lot and put an awfully thick bezel around the tiny small LCDs available at the time. Like the 360CE. A "waste" of space, mainly dictated by the size of the keyboard.



My suspicion is that the thick laptops were accepted back then, because their small form factor still made them "small" in terms of overall volume. So they still took up very little space and were practical to carry around even if they were thick by todays standards. As the LCDs grew bigger and system parts could be made smaller and even stretched out over a bigger area, there was simply no need for them to be so thick. Laptops could be made thinner and still allow room for proper components, ultrabays and peripheral ports. It's not before the introduction of the really slim units we have seen that certain sacrifices in terms of capabilities have been made.

I still remember editing AutoCad drawings on my 360Cs's 9.5" screen. I managed to do so at the time, but I hooked it up to an external CRT monitor as often as possible to reduce the strain on my eyes. So from a user standpoint the bigger LCDs were very welcome, as they developed into 12.1", 13.3 and eventually 14.1" and 15". And the thinner form factor was more or less just a natural consequence.

[exTPfan]

the thick laptops were accepted back then, because their small form factor still made them "small" in terms of overall volume.

"Thick" laptops would be accepted now. Thinness is a fashion statement. How much are you willing to give up for 5mm (the difference between an X301 and Hill's super thin retro laptop)? For me, the answer is nothing. To get a large screen area for a small overall volume, make the screen 4:3 or 3:2.

[Norway Pad]

I would partly agree, depending on the definition of "thick". I would not appreciate a 15" laptop of today with the thickness of a 770, but the T4x or even T6x thickness is acceptable. Thinner is ok too, but only if it doesn't require sacrifices on ports, CPU capabilities, existence of SODIMM slots and an external battery. If possible this thickness should be paired with a 4:3 or 16:10. As already stated many times here, my ideal would be a 4:3 but if the demand for a 4:3 LCD turns out to be the detail that makes the RetroThinkpad not happen or be a potential unsuccessful product, I would rather have a 16:10 unit than no RetroThinkpad at all.

But, if we end up with a 16:9, I rather have NO RetroThinkpd at all.

For your 3:2 suggestion, that's another option. Better than 16:10. But I'm not sure how to put it into my equation yet, weighing it in against 4:3 and 16:10, their availability and their potential appeal to consumers outside the Thinkpad enthusiasts. Maybe that's the sweet spot everyone could live with, and that would make the RetroThinkpad stand out as a classic but still inventive device that brought something new to the market?

[bgx]

For your 3:2 suggestion, that's another option. Better than 16:10. But I'm not sure how to put it into my equation yet, weighing it in against 4:3 and 16:10, their availability and their potential appeal to consumers outside the Thinkpad enthusiasts. Maybe that's the sweet spot everyone could live with, and that would make the RetroThinkpad stand out as a classic but still inventive device that brought something new to the market?

my impression indeed .
Well, if they can pull out a nice classic TP fast even 16:10 then i ll buy it. Then the poll may make them do later a 3:2 and that would be even better, but i dont think i would wait for that...

[Nigellus]

Sometimes they even had to compromise quite a lot and put an awfully thick bezel around the tiny small LCDs available at the time. Like the 360CE. A "waste" of space, mainly dictated by the size of the keyboard.

Now we have the opposite... unnecessarily large keyboard palmrests due to LCDs that are larger than one actually needs for what's supposed to be a portable computer.

Is it too much to ask that my newest "small" laptop fit in the same briefcase that held my 600E and my T60?

As an aside, that picture really takes me back.

[Summilux]

Maybe that's the sweet spot everyone could live with

Agreed, that's a good way to phrase it.

Although, out of curiosity I went and checked the reviews about the updated Chromebook Pixel, and it seems like some (edgy) people never grew up with square screens.

In the comments section of a review:

2. The screen is dumb

Google gave the Pixel a display with a 3:2 aspect ratio, claiming it suits the vertical nature of web browsing. Maybe that's true—but you're still left with a computer with a screen that's almost a square. The web goes up and down, I suppose, but our eyes go back and forth. Can you imagine watching a video on a 3:2 screen? Can you imagine the enormous letterboxes that will straddle the bar of moving image? Don't imagine it, because it is bad.

P.-S. : when the survey focusing on screen specs comes up, I'm thinking of voting for 3:2 instead of 4:3 (my preference). Sweet spot, as Norway Pad puts it, between usability and market coverage.

[pianowizard]

640x400 was rather common on laptops in the 1988-1990 era.

Well, those laptops were different. Back in that era, I had an educational laptop for kids that displayed only two lines of text. Its screen probably had a 20:1 aspect ratio, but that and other laptops from that era weren't considered "widescreen". The first widescreen laptop, by today's definition of the word, was indeed the 3:2 PowerBook G4. In fact, I just found a 2003 Apple announcement in which Steve Jobs referred to the January 2001 PowerBook G4 as "the industry's first widescreen notebook": https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/0 ... rBook.html

Dell made a decision with their workstation-class laptops (if there really is such a thing) to go for structural integrity, whereas Lenovo and Toshiba decided to go for lighter weight. The same goes for different fans for the CPU and GPU.

Initially, yes, but now, Dell also has the thin-and-light Precision M3800, a 4.15-lb 15.6-incher.

The vast majority of people buy laptop mostly for content consumption, still. They are happy with 16/9 ratio, they dont use the keyboard much, they dont care.

A big portion of laptop users are college students, who use their laptops to take notes and type papers/homework/etc.

These days, many if not most content consumers use tablets and smartphones instead of laptops. Even back in May 2014, 56% of online content was already consumed on smartphones and tablets: http://aci.info/2014/05/14/more-than-ha ... e-devices/ . The percentage must have gone further up by now.

Google gave the Pixel a display with a 3:2 aspect ratio, claiming it suits the vertical nature of web browsing. Maybe that's true—but you're still left with a computer with a screen that's almost a square. The web goes up and down, I suppose, but our eyes go back and forth.

Arguments based on the human visual field are actually *against* 16:9 but *for* 3:2, because our visual field's aspect ratio is closer to 3:2 than to 16:9.

[Nigellus]

Can you imagine watching a video on a 3:2 screen? Can you imagine the enormous letterboxes that will straddle the bar of moving image? Don't imagine it, because it is bad.

To me, this is one of the largest problems in modern laptop design.

Ten years ago, if I wanted a business laptop, I'd buy a ThinkPad. If I wanted a media laptop, I'd buy something else.

Now, it doesn't seem like I have the option to buy a business laptop because it was decided somewhere that everyone must want a media laptop. How movies will look and sound on the laptop have become the first concern.

They forget, though, that people with professions need professional laptops to do professional things.

Even though it's not ideally suited for movies and music, I watched a lot of things and listened to a lot of things on my 600E. And I was happy to do so because I was pleased with how my laptop served my business needs.

[skriefal]

Why on earth would anyone want to watch a video on a laptop? That's what TVs are for. Or "smart" phones, if you really need to take a look-see at "that Youtube clip" that's going around.

On a laptop I want a good matte screen (no wider than 16:10, and prefer *VA or IPS), a great non-chiclet keyboard with good throw, expandable / swappable memory (min of 16GB but more won't hurt) and storage, replaceable battery, a trackpoint, a fast and reliable wifi chipset of the latest variety (802.11ac), and a good selection of ports (gigabit ethernet, HDMI, maybe VGA, SD, and several USB 3.0 ports). If there is a trackpad then it should be a good one with multi-finger support and separate buttons. Preferably NO num-pad, and with the keyboard centered below the screen. And no BIOS whitelist (yes, I know that one's a long shot).

I don't care about touch screens, optical drives, backlit keyboards, or gaming-focused video chips. But I won't object to any of those things as long as they don't get in the way or seriously degrade battery life.

[Norway Pad]

Why on earth would anyone want to watch a video on a laptop?

I sure do, but it's far from the main purpose of my laptops. Btw. 90% of the stuff I watch is so old that it's in 4:3 format anyway. The few times I watch StarTrek on widescreen TVs or laptops, depending on the settings, there are either black bars on each side, or Captain Picard gets a very elongated head.

[lead_org]

Remember we need to make this project successful, so we can future editions of the ThinkPad Retro. I wouldn't mind a 3:2 screen with butterfly keyboard in the next generation.

[Nigellus]

Remember we need to make this project successful, so we can future editions of the ThinkPad Retro. I wouldn't mind a 3:2 screen with butterfly keyboard in the next generation.

Lenovo needs to realize that if they make their machines try to appeal to too many demographics, the machine will end up doing nothing well.

They have several different lines; they need to take advantage of that--there's no point making different models if they're all going to be laptops for watching movies.

If they give us a real ThinkPad for the traveling business professional, and make it true to what make ThinkPads popular in the first place (a ThinkPad for ThinkPadders, if you will), the good-will and buzz over that model by ThinkPadders will translate into word-of-mouth advertizing for the brand.

[Summilux]

Why on earth would anyone want to watch a video on a laptop?

Because we live in the 21st century.

Reading an article about the latest scientific experiment? There's a video attached to it.
The weekly conference call? It's always nice to see your interlocutors. Video.
Your biggest competitor launches its latest product? There's a livestream for that.

If you read my earlier posts, you will figure that I'm rather against wide screens. But it is completely unrealistic, and outdated, to expect laptop owners not to watch videos on their computer.

[Summilux]

Lenovo needs to realize that if they make their machines try to appeal to too many demographics, the machine will end up doing nothing well.

Indeed. And a machine fitted with a 3:2 screen coupled to a non-chiclets keyboard will probably repel a lot of potential laptop users.

But maybe less so than if it were offered with a 4:3 screen. This design choice could broaden the addressable market, thus making the project commercially more viable, whilst offering a much improved experience for Lenovo-era Thinkpadders. Win-win, sort of.

[Nigellus]

If you read my earlier posts, you will figure that I'm rather against wide screens. But it is completely unrealistic, and outdated, to expect laptop owners not to watch videos on their computer.

The only laptop I've never watched video on is my 755Cs. However, I did play DOS games on it and those games had graphics.

It's not that we don't want to watch video on our laptops, it's that we don't want that that to be the determining factor in the design of a computer that, at its core, needs to be something we can do actual work on.

[Nigellus]

But maybe less so than if it were offered with a 4:3 screen. This design choice could broaden the addressable market, thus making the project commercially more viable, whilst offering a much improved experience for Lenovo-era Thinkpadders. Win-win, sort of.

I'm on board.

[skriefal]

Reading an article about the latest scientific experiment? There's a video attached to it.
The weekly conference call? It's always nice to see your interlocutors. Video.
Your biggest competitor launches its latest product? There's a livestream for that.

I do expect some videos to be viewed, of course. But not movies, full TV episodes, or other lengthy content. At least not often. A 16:10 or even 3:2 screen is fine for this. [3:2 would be wonderful.]

As has been stated above, there are other options available -- even from Lenovo -- for those who want a laptop primarily for content consumption. I don't like seeing workstation-level laptops designed around soccer mom needs (or price points).

[Summilux]

It's not that we don't want to watch video on our laptops, it's that we don't want that that to be the determining factor in the design of a computer that, at its core, needs to be something we can do actual work on.

I do expect some videos to be viewed, of course. But not movies, full TV episodes, or other lengthy content. At least not often. A 16:10 or even 3:2 screen is fine for this. [3:2 would be wonderful.]

As has been stated above, there are other options available -- even from Lenovo -- for those who want a laptop primarily for content consumption. I don't like seeing workstation-level laptops designed around soccer mom needs (or price points).

We are all in agreement here that this Classic Thinkpad should not be media/video-oriented; but judging from D. Hill's proposal and the ensuing comments, I don't think it was ever in danger of being that.

On the other hand, being media-capable -as a secondary feature- does not sound unreasonable given today's video prevalence in many domains.

Thus 3:2 could be said sweet spot:

• Emphasis on height / text productivity
• More adept at displaying wide format videos than 4:3
• A bit less intimidating for the widescreen users (i.e. the vast majority of consumers) than 4:3.
• Off-the-shelf hi-res screen in case they offer the Pixel's one? (which is in-between the X220 and X301 in terms of size)

[brchan]

iPads are 4:3 (as others have stated), and most people don't have an issue with using it to view videos, so widescreen users probably shouldn't have much issue with a 4:3 laptop. Aesthetically, even 16:10 looks ugly on thinkpads. These types of machines really need 4:3 or 3:2 to look properly proportioned. A 5:4 ratio would be awesome for programming and spreadsheet work, but there is a %0.01 chance of that happening.

[PandorasThinkpad]

Hey!

I prefer "new classic" Thinkpad, too, first of all...

and then...

it might be something between T410s and X301, that would be fine, 13,3" in 16:10 will be ok, so it would probably become the macbook screen and this would be quite somehing like state of art...

Keyboard should be 7 row and classic island style...chiclet might be nice, but nothing for me.

Touchpad, i use to call it Touchbad....just a palmrest with and without, or with an little bit bigger Touchpad than the X201 has or a little bit more little than the T410s and X220 have, but no such huge Touchbad at all, such as in this modern Thinkpad models.

It would be very fine to have at least two row for ram, on every row at least 16 GB Ram should be supported...

CPU and Graphics, even those that will fit in not an totally thin Thinkpad.....with a very powerful quad for the real high end machine...

Many very well overthought ways of ports, interaction, connection, fast data transfer...docking port is a must....

Ultrabay would be fine...

And just something on the design, the Retro better "new classic" design of the time machine blog isn't quite much away from the Thinkpad that i would like to buy without any doubt..

It should have LED for Status, a somewhere in the command row integrated button to enable/ disable Touchbad...

Thinklight is a must, because it is very useful to work at night, you can handle documents and notes....and no USB light would give such an comfort...and the other thing is, a real Thinkpadder will be able to write blind....so no backlight keyboard is needed at all

The battery should be well dimensioned so that working for 14 oder 16 hours will be possible...

This is what the "new classic" Thinkpad should be...if you ask me "the artist" here and in the german thinkpad forum.

I have already taken part on the survey1 and i'm hardly waiting for the next one...

Kindly,

PanDoRA

[RealBlackStuff]

It seems we should no longer fancy Mac screens!
They now have their own "Staingate"!
See also: http://www.staingate.org/ for more pix.

[Nigellus]

Hey!


Many very well overthought ways of ports, interaction, connection, fast data transfer...docking port is a must....

Oh yeah, I forgot about the docking port.

Let me amend my previous statement: a modern 600E, with a ThinkLight, a docking port, a matte screen, modern innards, and basically any other productivity-oriented goody you want to put in there, so long as you don't muck with the classic keyboard or stray too far from the classic form factor.

[Utwig]

I watched 100's of movies on my 4:3 thinkpads, especially T42p with IPS.

IPS is good for movies and a lot of classic movies are shot in 4:3. If you watch a new movie on 4:3 you get black bars on top and if you watch classic movie (I like b&w samurai movies) on 16:9 you get black bars on the side.

There is nothing inherently wrong with 4:3 for watching movies if you have good IPS screen.

[bhtooefr]

It seems we should no longer fancy Mac screens!
They now have their own "Staingate"!
See also: http://www.staingate.org/ for more pix.

Is my MBPR affected by Staingate? Yes. (I didn't realize there was actually a name for it, though, as it didn't bother me in use.) Can I see it with the display on? Not unless light's shining directly at it. That is to say, it doesn't look as bad as an older ThinkPad with the paint flaking off the palmrest. (That's also not to say that defects like that are good.)

I also suspect that it has something to do with the top semi-glossy layer of the screen and either an anti-reflective coating flaking off (it's similar to how a cheaper pair of anti-reflective lenses I had in glasses fail) or how it's bonded, with the bezel and webcam behind it. The way Lenovo builds lids, I doubt that they'd build it that way - it'd be built more like a conventional panel - and I hope they'd know better than to go semi-glossy on a retro ThinkPad, they'd go full-matte. Problem solved.

[Summilux]

I also suspect that it has something to do with the top semi-glossy layer of the screen and either an anti-reflective coating flaking off (it's similar to how a cheaper pair of anti-reflective lenses I had in glasses fail) or how it's bonded, with the bezel and webcam behind it.

Yes, I too think that's where the issue comes from. Not from the screen itself but from the glass they put over.

That being said, the most similar thing I can think of, is the appearance of white spots on Thinkpads' IPS screens. I had that happen to me on both my T60 and my X220.

[murak]

Fellow thinkpad entusiast I bid you hello!

I don't post here often and I am pressed on time, so I'll keep this short and say that I will return with more thoughts, because there is plenty

I like that Lenovo and David is listening to core consumers on what they/we want in a "retro" thinkpad. But I feel that if they listened before (maby ship a survey with every thinkpad sold?) there would be no need for this whole thing. The fact that we are now even talking about a "retro" thinkpad is proof that something went wrong. I don't belive that David is doing this only for the fun (even though I think he is enjoying it )

That said I also don't like that the project is called "retro", as so many have already stated, it should be called "real" or "what-the-customer-wants" thinkpad.

Two cents on the first survey: I think a three button trackpad will sell most units, however I don't mind if there is 5 buttons. If you only use the trackpoint, just disable the trackpad .

7-row like the x220 is my preferred layout. Web back/forward buttons - don't care. If other people want it and it will sell more - do it. Big del and esc buttons is nice, but again - no dealbreaker. One thing that I really do want is dedicated buttons for screen brightness. Granted it never where on any thinkpad, but it is something I use several times a day and I really dislike the fn key (btw it and the ctrl should change place) For all I care the best thing would be All dedicated buttons so that everyone can use what they want without having to deal with the fn key.

Hope this new thinkpad becomes real!

Cheers