Will QXGA (2048x1536) screen option be available for T42p?

[JamDonut]

Hi,

The Hardware Maintenence Manual for the Thinkpad R50/R50p/R51 (direct URL ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/pc/pccbbs/mo ... 246_01.pdf, see page 193), mentions that a 15.0" QXGA (2048x1536) screen is available "Supported by CTO".

If the cost isn't astronomical, that could be a nice resolution to have; use the full 2048x1536 (with large fonts) to fit lots on screen, but go down to 1024x768 when the extra res isn't needed.

Does anyone know whether the T42p will be orderable with this screen? (Out of interest, how would one go about ordering an R50p with that screen?)


On a related note, most laptop screens only support 262,144 colors. I guess the hardware dithers 24-bit down to 18. Even so, it seems a bit misleading for IBM to state -- or at least strongly imply -- their screens can show 16 million colors. Many other manufacturers are guilty of the same thing though.


M.

[Conmee]

QXGA is only available as a corporate option and it's quite expensive... HOWEVER... if you want to shell out the $1200 for the QXGA LCD (available from IBM.com Parts, you can look it up FRU#92P6684), you could swap out your inverter card and display and have it available. But the text is VERY small... and you'd have to operate in a lower resolution if you're a human with normal eyesight.

Totally agree on the 262K LCDs... it's just one of those industry quirks like labeling 60GB hard drives... that really have only 60,000,000 bytes instead of the more accurate number (60 x 1,073,741,824) 64,424,509 bytes or so, which is why (60 / 1,073,741,824) 58.87 or so... Hence Windows reports a 60GB drive as 58GB (because Windows uses the accurate number for a GB), further bringing home the point, that because companies round a GB to 1,000,000,000 instead of the more accurate number, we're all buying smaller drives than advertised.

And then there's the whole 56K modem conversation, and the theoretical max throughput of, say, Ultra DMA/IDE subsystems v. actual throughput, max battery power v. actual results... pretty much the entire industry, like the software industry that sells betaware and offers "service packs" to fix things after the fact, is one ruled by "your results may vary." lol

Sorry about the non sequitors and rant...

Daniel.

[cynic]

Don't forget wireless numbers... The number of times I've heard from people complaining they don't get 11Mb/s on 802.11b or 54Mb/s on 802.11a or g. You have to explain protocol overheads and duplex transmissions and error control and that it really comes down to less than 1/2 is what you'll end up with. Of course this applies to standard networking too.

BTW, what would be the point of QXGA with large fonts? You then wouldn't end up with much desktop space in the first place-- though the fonts would look sharper. I couldn't deal with anything over 17.78K pixels per sq inch--you're looking at 29.13K ppi. QXGA is useful when you are doing 3-D modeling or use completely vectored programs (Adobe Illustrator on a consumer level-- otherwise it's all CAD/CAM work and scientific modeling like SigmaGraph)

[NathanA]

Whoa! 2048x1536? On a 15" IPS LCD? In a laptop??

I say, the higher the DPI, the better.

Are there any R50p model numbers (1832-XXU) that have this screen, or does IBM always expect it to be added on after the fact? If the computer is still within its warranty period, how are you supposed to make the swap without voiding the warranty? Will EasyServ do it for you?

Just think of the possibilities...even if there were times where the resolution would be too "high"/things too "small" for you, or if you wanted to play a game that would just not give acceptable performance at that resolution, you could lower the resolution to 1024x768 for a bit, and that resolution should, in theory, look FABULOUS on this LCD since the display has EXACTLY 4 times as many pixels as a 1024x768 display (1024 * 2 == 2048, 768 * 2 == 1536), so it should scale up perfectly without any distortion.

As far as stuffing one inside of a T42p, I have the same question as the original poster. Although at that price there is no way I could afford to do it now, this would be a fun upgrade to get a year or two down the road if I'm still using the machine (of course, perhaps by that time this kind of screen will be a standard option on most laptops!).

Looking at the HMM for the T40 series, the QXGA does not seem to be an option for the T42p. However, it might be feasible to make it work inside of a T42p nonetheless. Most of the parts between the UXGA and the QXGA panels for the R50p are the same and can be shared between the two panels: the cover kit/bezel, wireless antennas, and clear plate.

What may pose to be a problem are the parts that are not shared between the panels and which the QXGA panel does not have equivalent parts for on the T42p. First, there is the cable assembly. I don't necessarily anticipate that being a big problem; since the video chipset is the same between the R50p and the T42p, the QXGA cable should plug into the T42p motherboard without a problem (hopefully). Second is the inverter board. This may or may not be a problem, depending on whether we can make it fit inside of a T42p. The part number for the SXGA+/UXGA inverter is different between the R50p and the T42p, so even if they are spec'd the same, they are probably custom-designed to fit into the case assemblies of their respective models. I did notice that in both the R50p and the T42p, the same inverter is used for the 15" SXGA+ and UXGA screens, so maybe, MAYBE we could get away with using the same inverter for the QXGA.

The one ODD thing that I noticed is that for some reason, the R50p has a separate part number for *hinges* when the QXGA screen is being used. Why would the hinges need to be different?! The hinges are the same for all of the other 15" screens on both the T42p and R50p, so why would the QXGA LCD be any different? Hopefully the old T42p 15" hinges could be retrofitted to work with the QXGA screen as well.

Is this crazy talk? I hope not.

Anyhow, it's fun to think about.

-- Nathan

[Kenn]

Re: Hinges: I believe there are different weights associated with different display types, but I don't know if it's a heavier inverter board or denser screen or what - only that most "advertised" weights use the lowest-resolution screens available. That MIGHT account for different hinges, though the 15" t42 hinges are almost bend-the-LCD-tight.


I for one would LOVE to have a QXGA 15" screen, or almost better yet, UXGA 14.1". I run Word at 75% magnification on UXGA, and an extra 400+ pixels of length would let me an extra document on screen at 75%, or thee side by side comfortably at 100%.

Of course, just because QXGA is perfectly divisible into XGA doesn't mean that switching to 10x7 will give you a sharp image without any fuzzy anti-aliasing. Just ask anyone who's run UXGA at 800x600. It's a travesty.

[NathanA]

Of course, just because QXGA is perfectly divisible into XGA doesn't mean that switching to 10x7 will give you a sharp image without any fuzzy anti-aliasing. Just ask anyone who's run UXGA at 800x600. It's a travesty.

Really?? That's disappointing to hear...I haven't received my KXU yet so I can't try it out and I'll have to take your word for it.

You'd think that there'd be some way to disable the anti-aliasing and thus force it to use 4 pixels for every 1 pixel when blowing 8x6 up to fit the screen.

I actually hadn't even thought of using 800x600 on the UXGA screen until you brought it up, but yes, UXGA is perfectly divisible into SVGA in the same way that XGA is into QXGA.

-- Nathan

[Kenn]

Yeah, it's unfortunate. When you get your system, compare "native" 8x6 mode with the on-screen magnifier at 2x and you'll see a big difference. Fortunately, the pixel pitch at UXGA is small enough where the aliasing isn't too troublesome. I imagine 10x7 on QXGA should be the same. But you're right, it's much better native.

[Daver]

BTW, what would be the point of QXGA with large fonts? You then wouldn't end up with much desktop space in the first place-- though the fonts would look sharper. I couldn't deal with anything over 17.78K pixels per sq inch--you're looking at 29.13K ppi. QXGA is useful when you are doing 3-D modeling or use completely vectored programs (Adobe Illustrator on a consumer level-- otherwise it's all CAD/CAM work and scientific modeling like SigmaGraph)

The point would be for displaying things you don't have to read. Like images. By shrinking everythign but text, you can still fit a great deal more text on your display. A lot more of everything really.

-Daver

[aludal]

If I may....

If I remeber right, IBM showed a 22" 200+ dpi LCD 24 "true" bit display here at McEnery (Intel Developers Forum or smthg) like 1.5 years ago. It's on sale since, with big savings from its initial price tag. Not cheapo though yet, fsck!

I remember I started drooling heavily the second I spotted it. I had my 30x pocket Agfa microscope with me, just to check they were not cheating. They were not.

My Lady of the Valley who's in semiconductor industry enlightened me that costs for, say, 14.1" LCD panels of the same generation, are about $10 per piece no matter whose make, or resolution. You might shell out several cents more for specimens with no dead/hot pixels, plus 10 to 15 cents more for better (wider angle, close to finer optical) polarizer, but that's it.

Plain dumb lack of interest in the market drives the prices for these 200 dpi wunderbabies up.

Now this returns me to the theme: a future notebook with average 15-16" 3000x2000x32bpp screen will make AA/ClearType/hinting obsolete (kerning wars will start between major foundries though.) Naturally, there will be no "problem" of font size, as it's actually no such problem at all. LCD eBooks (cheap panels you buy with your membership to Borders or local library) might start a new life, after an untimely death in grips of Adobe/M$. Whatnot.

[NathanA]

If I remeber right, IBM showed a 22" 200+ dpi LCD 24 "true" bit display here at McEnery (Intel Developers Forum or smthg) like 1.5 years ago. It's on sale since, with big savings from its initial price tag. Not cheapo though yet, fsck!

Yes, I remember reading about this on Slashdot a long time ago...ah, yes, here it is:

http://slashdot.org/articles/00/07/13/140253.shtml

Is this the display you are referring to? The "Roentgen" technology LCDs?

My Lady of the Valley who's in semiconductor industry enlightened me that costs for, say, 14.1" LCD panels of the same generation, are about $10 per piece no matter whose make, or resolution. (...) Plain dumb lack of interest in the market drives the prices for these 200 dpi wunderbabies up.

Well, certainly R&D costs factor into why these displays are so pricey, as well? Just because the materials only amount to a few dollars doesn't mean there aren't other expenses...

Naturally, there will be no "problem" of font size, as it's actually no such problem at all.

EXACTLY! Thank you for pointing this out. It kills me to read posts by people who are worried that a certain resolution will make things "too small" to read or view comfortably. The trick is that everybody seems to think that the sole point of higher resolutions is to get more screen real-estate. No, the point of higher resolutions is to have a HIGHER RESOLUTION! If you scale up the fonts and icons on your 15" 1600x1200 display so that they are physically the exact same size as they would be on a 15" 1024x768 display with the font and icon sizes set at their normal/default values, the fact is that *your eyes will thank you for getting the higher resolution display*. Do these same people complain when printer technology advances and makes text and photo output crisper and cleaner? That's done by raising the DPI! Would you rather that the text that comes out of your printer look blocky?

Now, naturally, although there is no such thing as a "font" problem since vector-based fonts can scale up to fit your resolution and still remain sharp-looking, the argument could be made that higher-resolution displays pose a problem for bitmap graphics (photographs, etc.) The only solution for that problem is to change over to using largely vector-based images as well (even/especially on the web, where GIF and JPG dominate), and for those types of images that cannot be vectorized (like digital photographs), I guess that digital cameras will just have to make leaps in their "megapixel" growth parallel with improvements that happen with display technology.

Thus endeth my rant...

-- Nathan

[ehd]

what about thinkpad tablet pcs.. touchscreen is sexy..

[sethstorm]

I never saw this "T221-to-go" option in TABOOK, why (other than expense) would it be only a corporate option? Regardless, sounds like something I'd do when the warranty's out on the T42p.

IBM already had tablet PC's with the 701/730/750 series, just no color or Windows. They could just shed the keyboard and fold in the T series to get something good and thin - and possibly with 2048x1536 if you could shell out $3000 for one.

[Kenn]

EXACTLY! Thank you for pointing this out. It kills me to read posts by people who are worried that a certain resolution will make things "too small" to read or view comfortably. The trick is that everybody seems to think that the sole point of higher resolutions is to get more screen real-estate. No, the point of higher resolutions is to have a HIGHER RESOLUTION!

-- Nathan

You were right on until you the last sentence there. The reason most people who do so want to move past 1024x768 is NOT to get a "higher resolution" on the same-size display assets, but indeed to have more screen real estate. Of course, you could run everything at 120+dpi and live with the Windows-rendered jaggies and text/graphics misalignments, which has long-plagued those with higher-than-desired resolutions, but doing so can hardly be advocated as a good reason to go with a more expensive, higher-resolution screen.

Interpolation of the display to get smoother text is certainly a valid reason to get a higher res screen, and I don't take exception to that view. However, it's way out in left field to say that it's the main reason and benefit.

However, this gets interesting as we scale to the extremes. Right now, 1600x1200 on 15" is, imo very close to resolution-independent display, where you should be able to choose the size of your screen assets without regard to the native resolution of the display. I think QXGA on 15" is definitely there. We'll probably see this happen on OS X long before it happens on Avalon, but either way, as far as the future is concerned the argument you make above may end up being prophetic.

[jsfrank]

Hi... I broke down and bought the parts from IBM for my R50p, the qxga panel, inverter board, and hinge posts... all I can say is wow!!

It's a little hard to adjust to at first, but the resolution and screen real estate is great... me personally, I think that display area is the biggest boost to productivity, so it was worth it.

If anyone wants details, pls. let me know.... thanks

sam

[NathanA]

If anyone wants details, pls. let me know.... thanks

Fantastic!! Yes, please provide details! And possibly some nice digital photos if you could. I want to see this thing in action!

Did you get any bad pixels? Could you even *TELL* if there were bad pixels at that PPI?? Heh heh...

Are there any downsides to using this display instead of the UXGA? I'm not talking about the fineness of resolution or anything like that; I'm looking more for functional differences. Is one display brighter than the other? Has better contrast? Better/worse backlight distribution? Or are they pretty much equals?

How much different were the hinge posts than the one for the UXGA FlexView? Are the hinge posts those flat metal "sticks" that screw into the sides of the LCD? Is the primary difference the location of the screw holes? (If so, this should be pretty easy to retrofit on a T42...)

Have you seen the inverter board from a T42? Is it similar in size and function to the R50p? I'm wondering if the QXGA inverter board for the R50p could be retrofitted to fit the 15" T42...

Is the panel the exact same size and thickness as the UXGA panel?

And finally, the BIG question: having never seen an R50p myself, I'm wondering how possible it would be to put the QXGA panel in a 15" T42, but crucial to making this work is to have a working LCD cable. How similar is the R50p LCD cable to the T42 LCD cable (the UXGA one, not the QXGA one...the T42 has no equivalent cable for QXGA, so the other one has to be retrofitted, hence the question)? Does the R50p's cable have the ThinkLight AND the standby/closed lid switch built into the actual LCD cable like the T42? If so, I'm wondering if they're in roughly the same place as they are on the UXGA cable for the T42, and if everything would "line up" and work. Also, is the video header on the motherboard the same for the T42 as it is for the R50p?

I realize that you probably don't have the answers to all of these questions; I'm just trying to think out-loud and ask the questions that us T42 owners will need answers to in order to make this mod work for our computers.

Thanks!!

-- Nathan

[Kenn]

I'd love to hear more as well!

$1200 sounds steep, but for a 3-megapixel display....tempting!

I'm interested in hearing about brightness as compared to UXGA, and if you notice the video chipset lagging to keep up with the extra data.

Also, I think the MR/FireGL is limited to ~1900x1500 resolution for overlays, have you notice that while playing full-screen video?

Of course, any light you can shed on weight or battery life differences would be appreciated as well (1600 is hard enough to read at lowest brightness while on battery, I imagine 2048 would be even more so).

Thanks!

[RCube]

I think the main problem is the OS. Something like Winxp just does not have good dpi support. Sure you can make the fonts bigger. But you get side effects like pixelated icons, programs that won't work, ugly dialog box layout, etc. Also some programs just don't read that dpi information you set in windows...like firefox.

It shouldn't matter what dpi one has. The icon/font I see should look exactly the same(size) as another monitor that has a different dpi.

So for high res displays to really take off ...we need the next version of windows. Or one has to use linux or mac os x. Both have much better scaling support than current winxp.

[Kenn]

I think the main problem is the OS. Something like Winxp just does not have good dpi support. Sure you can make the fonts bigger. But you get side effects like pixelated icons, programs that won't work, ugly dialog box layout, etc. Also some programs just don't read that dpi information you set in windows...like firefox.

It shouldn't matter what dpi one has. The icon/font I see should look exactly the same(size) as another monitor that has a different dpi.

So for high res displays to really take off ...we need the next version of windows. Or one has to use linux or mac os x. Both have much better scaling support than current winxp.

True. Especially the increasing use of 3D for rendering on MacOS - we're getting very close to true resolution-independence. IMO, 1600x1200 at 15" diagonal is just about there hardwarewise (pixels are small enough). Now we just need the software support. There was a recent article about next-gen open-source UI concepts under cairo that go into that (animated vector-based icons, true scaling of windows and screen elements, etc.). Sounds great, but we'll probably all need ot upgrade by then

[LumberJack]

This thread brings up an interesting possibility. Do you guys think that it's possible to upgrade the LCD on any thinkpad? I ask because the resolution on my X31 could stand to be higher... will an X40 LCD fit as a replacement! That would totally be awesome since 1024x768 is what I would say is the minimun resolution you would want to run on now adays...

LJ

[gazingwa]

Lumberjack.... What resolution do you have!!!!!
My x20 has a 1024x768 granted the celeron model cam ewith an 800x600

your x31 should have 1024x768, same as the x40

[LumberJack]

Yeah... sorry I do have 1024x768. OH I thought that the X40 had 1200 x 1024 or the next level up?

Ic... blast... so I guess there is no 12.1"LCD by IBM that supports a higher resolution? that's too bad...

LJ

[Kenn]

Yeah... sorry I do have 1024x768. OH I thought that the X40 had 1200 x 1024 or the next level up?

Ic... blast... so I guess there is no 12.1"LCD by IBM that supports a higher resolution? that's too bad...

LJ

The Toshiba Portege (?) 12" tablet has had 1400x1050 for years now. I really wish IBM offered an X40 config with at least that resoluion. Considering all of the 10" and smaller ultracompacts coming out now, I really think they could stand to make 1024x768 @ 12" just one of several options

[jsfrank]

Hi all... here are the deets on the QXGA install on the thinkpad r50p.

Originally, I was reading the service manual (at IBMs website) on my R50p while installing a 54g wireless mini pci card. Anyway, I was looking through the parts lists for the various FRUs and I noticed a thing for a QXGA screen. I searched online and didn't really find anything about it, but some of the LCD vendors (awful websites, some of them) list a bunch of IBM part numbers relating the QXGA.

Anyway, I found the parts online after a couple of tries, and figured heck, why not? In a way I kind of regretted buying the R50p over the T42p because of the extra girth, and overall less elegant form factor... so this was kind of a way to make up for that I guess. Weird? Anyway, I got the R50p at a great discount (at the time) and even with the added cost of the QXGA panel, its still less than I paid for my t40p when it came out (ouch).

So here are the parts you'll need to replace an R50p with 15" UXGA screen (+ati radeon 128mb video card) with the CTO/ibm parts only QXGA screen:

IBM
92P6684
LCD PANEL 15 QXGA
Factory Direct


IBM
91P6837
CABLE LCD 15 QXGA
Factory Direct

IBM
13N5176
HINGE 15
Factory Direct

IBM
91P7339
INVERTER QXGA

I ordered the parts from a website (please email me privately for purchase deets, I'm not promoting anyone's business or anything) and about 5 days later they arrived direct from IBM parts warehouse in PA (?)

Someone asked about the hinges... I'm guessing they are the same, but for $18 I thought, well, hey, new hinges too. I downloaded (and printed out) the R50p service manual, disassembled the computer, very carefully split the bezel around the LCD monitor (pain in the butt), and swapped out the inverter, cable, LCD panel, and hinges.

The hardest part is removing and reinstalling the plastic fascia/bezel thing, and routing the various wireless antenna, well, uh wires around the panel.

and.... IT WORKS!!!

The overall quality of the screen (brightness, sharpness etc) is EXCELLENT. It is certainly on par with the UXGA screen that I had before. Predictably, the resolution is excellent too.

The screen real estate is like, surreal... it is fully four times the resolution of an XGA screen, which is pretty biiig. Graphics apps and Timeline/palette interface applications like Flash MX and Premiere in particular are amazing... a joy to use. I don't use CAD software, but I'm guessing it would be great too.

Office apps, like microsoft word etc. well... not so hot (tiny menus, buttons, toolbars etc). I also have a second, ordinary XGA 15 external LCD so I can view web pages from ground level (as opposed to watching them at 30,000 feet on the QXGA panel). Satellite photos come to mind when I load CNN on it... haha.

But it's great. I haven't really checked out the battery life issue, but the panel is definitely heavier than the UXGA panel, and I'm sure the battery life is shorter, just intuitively. Its a great upgrade, however, and I would do it again in a heartbeat.

So yeah, QXGA... it rocks. I will try to post links to photos soon.

I'd like to know (curious) if someone can find the parts cheaper... my total bill (parts only) was about US$1250.

Oh yeah, re: modifying the cable in the UXGA t42p... I'm not sure, but the connectors on these LCD cables are TINY and FRAGILE so, best of luck.

(yes, I would try it if I had a t42P)

thanks all.

samma

[Kenn]

Awesome, thanks for the writeup

I'm not surprised to hear the display is heavier. The 15" has incredibly tight hinges compared to the 14" (the 14" display slowly flops down when I try to use it on the bus), I wonder if the QXGA one needs to be even tighter.

I have a couple of concerns with higher res, both somewhat minor usability issues.

1) The default acceleration curve on the MS mouse driver doesn't let the ultranav go fast enough where you could easily cross a 1900 screen in one flick. And if you turn off acceleration or jack up the refresh rate (I know it doesn't make sense, but it works) you lose single-pixel level control of the cursor.

2) screen redraws slow down, especially if you use a modest level of transparencies or overlays. I already notice this on UXGA.

As I said, both are minor enough. I'd do the upgrade if it wasn't 50% the cost of the machine itself

Nice job, congrats on such a kickass display! Btw, splitting the monitor bezel is a HUGE pain. It took me about 45 minutes the first time I tried (figuring out how such a fragile frame was attached without breaking it was nerve-wracking).

[rojabuck]

--- No Longer Valid ---

[smugiri]

Here are the specs for the X300: according to this, it does 16.7M colors at 2048x1536 without issues so the GPU would not be a bottleneck is you decided to try your hand at this project.

Theoretically, according to TABOOK as of Oct 2005: and the T43 hardware maintainance manual, pages 228 to 234, the best you can get into a T43 with a 15' frame is UXGA. It seems that that the QXGA screen is only supported officially in the R50p/R51 according to IBM. But, this thread suggests you might ( possibly ) ( maybe ) be able to get some kind of "Frankenstein" up. I suspect the key issue here is the depth of the LCD assembly on the T43. Good luck if you decide to try it and as always, YMMV.

[pianowizard]

Wow, I wasn't aware of Thinkpads with QXGA displays until coming across this thread today! Is it still true that the 15" QXGA display can only be used with an R50, R50p or R51? Would any 15" model of these Thinkpads work? How hard is it to replace the original (say, XGA) display with a QXGA one?

[Proteus]

My colleague has the QXGA screen on the R50p, and it is utterly amazing. Yes, the text is small..if you run XP.
Running Vista, with true proportional font support, and there is NO better screen on the market...anywhere. Period. End of story.

Highly recommended...IF you can still find it.

[christopher_wolf]

I have *got* to see one of these displays in action; then see if I could rig it to a T4X Chassis and have it work!

[pianowizard]

Hi all... here are the deets on the QXGA install on the thinkpad r50p.......

Samma, thanks for your details instructions! Without them, I wouldn't have gotten it installed so quickly. And yes, the LCD bezel was a pain to remove, and putting it back was even harder! Thank goodness I didn't break anything.