Any news on Sandy Bridge Thinkpads

[penartur]

The wide 14" is slightly wider and shorter than 4:3 15" and now you get either 1440x900 or 1366x768 (maybe 1600x900) instead of 1600x1200.

You're wrenching facts.
Instead of 1600x1200 (quite high resolution on these days, afaik the only screen with the higher resolution was rare 2048x1536) you're getting 1920x1080.
1366x768 vs. 1600x1200 has nothing to do with an aspect ratio. 1366x768 is the lowest 15" laptop resolution, and 1600x1200 was nearly the highest (the highest if we won't count 2048x1536). And if we will compare apples to apples: what was the lowest 15" laptop resolution back in 4:3 days? 1024*768? I don't know about your opinion, but IMHO 1366x768 is better than 1024x768.

The wide 15" is half a kilo heavier and 5cm wider than 4:3 so it's not same volume / form factor.

15" 4:3 T60p: 2.71kg without the battery, 329x268mm.
15.6" 16:9 T510: 2.72kg with a 9-cell battery, 372x245mm.

Also the W series has the heavy powerbrick which further increases travel weight compared to 15" T__p

Both W510/T510 and T60p came with 65W/90W powerbrick, depending on the internals (AFAIK you'll get 90W for a discrete/hybrid GPU model and 65W for an integrated GPU model). However, according to the links above, T60p powerbricks weight is 340gm and 490gm respectively, while W510/T510 weight is 260gm and 360gm respectively.

This wouldn't be that much of a problem as long as you get reasonable density in portable form factor but now only high density displays are 10" 1366x769

And what was 10" resolution in 4:3 days? I've never heard of any 4:3 10" device with resolution higher than 1024x768.

14" 1600x900 (if they make one)

By the way, there are 13" 1920*1080 (Sony Z-series). Is this high enough?

[beeblebrox]

Poor little Lenovo, they are too small to give their customers what they want.[/quote]

I had the same thoughts. Until I saw at the CES the new Kno tablet.
16:10 IPS with 1440x900 pixels.

How come that little Kno Corp. can get excellent Displays and Lenovo not?
Ok, Kno Corp. is funded by Paul Allen, who could buy Lenovo from his pocket money, but still...!

[penartur]

I had the same thoughts. Until I saw at the CES the new Kno tablet.
16:10 IPS with 1440x900 pixels.

How come that little Kno Corp. can get excellent Displays and Lenovo not?
Ok, Kno Corp. is funded by Paul Allen, who could buy Lenovo from his pocket money, but still...!

First of all, i cannot find any info on whether Kno has IPS or TN display on their website http://www.kno.com
Then, it is possible that, thanks for Apple, IPS are more popular today than they were a couple of years ago; and that display manufacturers are making more of that IPS display sheets, so maybe it is easier to get an IPS screen today than it was a couple of years ago.
Also, Lenovo representative said they need 15000 users to introduce the IPS option. I doubt Kno aims to sell less than 15000 tablets, so maybe they're in different leagues again, with Kno being stronger.

PS: And what about 65 millions of iPads mentioned in your other topic, it seems that it is what you need to order 4:3 screens. IPS screens are not that hard to order; lenovo actually uses these in their X200 tablet.

[anthean]

I hope it doesn't go this far (for laptops, anyway), but Endgadget reports: JVC shows off prototype 50-inch 21:9 full HD 3D TV, says it could hit US later this year

Hard to imagine 21:9 could become standard for laptops, but stranger things do happen.

[pianowizard]

Hard to imagine 21:9 could become standard for laptops, but stranger things do happen.

Yeah, 21:9 would be the best aspect ratio ever for laptops!

[penartur]

I hope it doesn't go this far (for laptops, anyway), but Endgadget reports: JVC shows off prototype 50-inch 21:9 full HD 3D TV, says it could hit US later this year

Hard to imagine 21:9 could become standard for laptops, but stranger things do happen.

By the way, Philips sells their 21:9 TVs (2560x1080) for a couple of years already.

[pianowizard]

By the way, Philips sells their 21:9 TVs (2560x1080) for a couple of years already.

That's mentioned in the first sentence of that Engadget article. We also discussed that Philips HDTV on this forum before (scroll down): http://67.214.227.38/~thinkpad/forum/vi ... 1&p=528577

Some people might actually like 2560x1080 for a large desktop monitor. Right now, I am using a computer driving two side-by-side UXGA monitors, i.e. 3200x1200 or 24:9, and it works great. 2560x1080 would have fewer pixels than that, but it would have the advantage of being one continuous screen.

[bill bolton]

Poor little Lenovo, they are too small to give their customers what they want.

It seems to me that Lenovo is giving the users who buy the bulk of their ThinkPad production exactly what they want.

Cheers,

Bill B.

[anthean]

It seems to me that Lenovo is giving the users who buy the bulk of their ThinkPad production exactly what they want.

Cheers,

Bill B.

This may be true, of course. But proving it really would require a survey of the customers "who buy the bulk of their Thinkpad production". I do presume Lenovo does its best to track its customer satisfaction. If you have this knowledge, please let me know, although I would be surprised if it is available to the general public.

The landscape of computer manufacturers is a lot different from what it was 10 years ago. Companies do make mistakes--even Lenovo.

[Summilux]

Btw, some pics of the X220T have been leaked: http://www.51nb.com/?action-viewnews-itemid-63221

[aceo07]

1366x768 is the lowest 15" laptop resolution, and 1600x1200 was nearly the highest (the highest if we won't count 2048x1536). And if we will compare apples to apples: what was the lowest 15" laptop resolution back in 4:3 days? 1024*768? I don't know about your opinion, but IMHO 1366x768 is better than 1024x768.

It's not the issue of what's the 'lowest' standard and how the 'lowest' now is better than the 'lowest' before. There's no longer an option to get anything as good as was available before.

Before, I got a 12" laptop with an option for 1400x1050 resolution. Not possible now.
Before, I got a 15" laptop with an option for 1600x1200 resolution. Not possible now. (I think?)

Sure, the lowest wasn't great before, BUT I could choose something much better. Now I have to settle for something slightly better than the worst before, but can't get as good as before.

For me, it's like taking a step forward and 2 steps back. I never got the default lowest option before and always went for the highest. Now the highest is not an option.

[penartur]

It's not the issue of what's the 'lowest' standard and how the 'lowest' now is better than the 'lowest' before. There's no longer an option to get anything as good as was available before.

Before, I got a 12" laptop with an option for 1400x1050 resolution. Not possible now.

But 1440x900 is possible (X200s, X201s)
And now you can get a 13" with an option for 1920x1080, was this possible "before"?

Before, I got a 15" laptop with an option for 1600x1200 resolution. Not possible now. (I think?)

But you said that now you have to live with 1440x900 or 1366x768 or 1280x800 instead of 1600x1200. This is what i call "wrenching facts". You can get 1920x1080 now (T510/W510 with FHD screen). Of course, 1080 is less than 1200, but it is much more than 768 you're talking about.
Saying "now i can only purchase crappy 1366x768 or 1280x800 instead of gorgeous 1600x1200 i've purchased before" is wrenching facts in the same way as saying "now i can purchase gorgeous 1920x1080 instead of crappy 1024x768 i've had to purchase before".

Sure, the lowest wasn't great before, BUT I could choose something much better. Now I have to settle for something slightly better than the worst before, but can't get as good as before.

Is 1920x1080 just "slightly better" than 1024x768?

For me, it's like taking a step forward and 2 steps back. I never got the default lowest option before and always went for the highest. Now the highest is not an option.

What was the highest resolution for 13" back in 4:3 days?

[pianowizard]

For me, it's like taking a step forward and 2 steps back. I never got the default lowest option before and always went for the highest. Now the highest is not an option.

Let's compare the 3 aspect ratios in every screen size, with the winner highlighted:

~10":
4:3: 1024x768 on 10.4"
16:10: N/A
16:9: 1366x768 on 10.1"

~11":
4:3: N/A
16:10: N/A
16:9: 1366x768 on 11.1" (I am not highlighting this one because there is no competition here.)

~12":
4:3: 1400x1050 on 12.1" (The caveat is this was found only on tablets, not conventional laptops.)
16:10: 1440x900 on 12.1"
16:9: 1366x768 on 11.6"

~13":
4:3: 1024x768 on 13.3"
16:10: 1440x900 on 13.3"
16:9: 1920x1080 on 13.1" (If you object that this screen's super high pixel density renders it "useless", we can change this to "1600x900 on 13.1", which would still be the winner in this size group.)

~14":
4:3: 1600x1200 on 14.1" (If you object that the number of laptops with this resolution was too few, we can change this to "1400x1050 on 14.1", which would still be the winner in this size group.)
16:10: 1440x900 on 14.1"
16:9: 1600x900 on 14.0"

~15":
4:3: 1600x1200 on 15.0" (I am not counting the 2048x1536 screen because it was so hard to get and compatible with very few laptops)
16:10: 1920x1200 on 15.4"
16:9: 1366x768 on 14.5"

~16":
4:3: 1600x1200 on 16.1"
16:10: N/A
16:9: 1920x1080 on 15.6", 16.0" and 16.4"

~17":
4:3: N/A
16:10: 1920x1200 on 17.0"
16:9: 1920x1080 on 17.3"

~18":
4:3: N/A
16:10: N/A
16:9: 1920x1080 (I am not highlighting this one because there is no competition here.)

In conclusion, 4:3 won twice, 16:10 won twice, and 16:9 won three times.

On the other hand, if I make a list of my personal favorite resolutions:

16:9: 1366x768 on 10.1"
16:9: 1366x768 on 11.1"
4:3: 1400x1050 on 12.1"
16:9: 1600x900 on 13.1"
4:3: 1600x1200 on 14.1"
16:10: 1920x1200 on 15.4"
16:10: 1920x1200 on 17.0" (excellent for a desktop replacement that I could comfortably use as my primary computer; at one point I was seriously considering getting a Dell Vostro 1720 with this resolution.)

In this competition, 3 panels are 16:9, 2 are 16:10, 2 are 4:3. So once again, 16:9 won.

In my view, the 16:9 aspect ratio is bad mainly for desktop monitors, as I explained in this post.

[penartur]

In this competition, 3 panels are 16:9, 2 are 16:10, 2 are 4:3. So once again, 16:9 won.

And if we will compare tallscreens to widescreens, widescreens will win by a huge margin with five winners being widescreen and only two being tallscreen (namely 14" and 12")

[automobus]

~15":
4:3: 1600x1200 on 15.0" (I am not counting the 2048x1536 screen because it was so hard to get and compatible with very few laptops)
~16":
4:3: 1600x1200 on 16.1"

What would you think of a sixteen-inch QXGA panel, if it existed?

I think I would be most comfortable with a thirteen or twelve inch SXGA panel. 12.1" XGA is comfortable; 12.1" SXGA+ would just be too much for me in a laptop, but maybe not in a tablet.
14.1" SXGA+ is nice and all, but I prefer something a little smaller. If only 4:3 SXGA (not+) panels were more common; I wonder if they exist at all? Was it only CRTs that used 4:3 SXGA?

[anthean]

You know, rather than endlessly arguing screen aspect ratio, those of us who are inclined should create a "4:3/IPS Screen Laptop Consumer's Union". From other notebook forums, I know a similar discussion is occurring among users of Dell's business line. A common approach could allow us to ally with these folks, and thus better demonstrate the level of demand. If some manufacturer (preferably Lenovo, but I would settle for any quality business notebook) takes head, so much the better. If not, well, that will be the end of this discussion.

To those folks who prefer widescreen, that is OK. No one wants to take it away from you. All I have ever asked for is a choice.

[penartur]

You know, rather than endlessly arguing screen aspect ratio, those of us who are inclined should create a "4:3/IPS Screen Laptop Consumer's Union". From other notebook forums, I know a similar discussion is occurring among users of Dell's business line. A common approach could allow us to ally with these folks, and thus better demonstrate the level of demand. If some manufacturer (preferably Lenovo, but I would settle for any quality business notebook) takes head, so much the better. If not, well, that will be the end of this discussion.

To those folks who prefer widescreen, that is OK. No one wants to take it away from you. All I have ever asked for is a choice.

First of all, please, distinguish 4:3 and IPS, this is a completely different things with a completely different demands. 4:3 will never happen, because it seems that even if all thinkpad consumers will prefer 4:3, it will still be too low demand for lenovo to ask LCD manufacturers to produce such a low amount of that screens. I've said this in other threads: yes, apple was able to ask manufacturers to produce 4:3 screens, but for 2011, apple ordered a bulk of 65 millions 4:3 screens of single model, and lenovo only made 60 millions of ThinkPads since 1992, and these thinkpads used many different screens. Just now i believe that every single screen model (if we will distinguish the model by size and resolution) is ordered by lenovo in quantities like 100.000-500.000 in year, which is less than 1% from what apple orders. There just cannot be any comparison. Shortly speaking: 4:3 won't happen, no matter how you and lenovo will want it.
Then, creating an "IPS Screen Laptop Consumer's Union" would help, if it has an appropriate number of members. Lenovo even said that they will introduce an IPS option on any model if there will be 15000 consumers asking for such an option (and willing to prepay for it as a confirmation of their words: nobody can be trusted on the internets). However, for some strange reason, after that lenovo statement, people prefer not to unite so that there will be 15000 of pre-orders but to endlessly speak about how bad lenovo is and how easy it is to find that 15000 users on our global market and how will it improve lenovo's image... everything except for actually joining some union to make 15000 of pre-orders. Possibly that's because there is only 100 people on such forums frustrating about lack of IPS options, and nobody else cares.

[pianowizard]

What would you think of a sixteen-inch QXGA panel, if it existed?

The pixel density of QXGA on 16.1" would be 159.01 DPI, significantly better than that of QXGA on 15.0" (170.67 DPI) but still a tad too small. My HP 5101's 1366x768 on 10.1" is the highest pixel density that I like, at 155.16 DPI. So, I would welcome QXGA on 16.5", which gives 155.15 DPI. But I would also require a super thin display bezel for such a laptop, to minimize its footprint so that it's not too bulky. The dimensions of a 16.5" 4:3 screen would be 13.20" x 9.90".

If only 4:3 SXGA (not+) panels were more common; I wonder if they exist at all? Was it only CRTs that used 4:3 SXGA?

"SXGA" usually refers 1280x1024, which is 5:4, although some people have used it to refer to 1280x960, which is 4:3. If you were indeed talking about 1280x960, then you are right, only CRT monitors used 1280x960. But if you were asking about 1280x1024, the 770X and 770Z Thinkpads had 13.7" 1280x1024, and of course many 17" and 19" LCD monitors use this resolution as well.

Lenovo even said that they will introduce an IPS option on any model if there will be 15000 consumers asking for such an option

Lenovo should already know that lots of people want IPS. If I remember correctly, when Lenovo was selling 15.0" T60p's with UXGA IPS screens, the demand was so high that these screens were sold out quickly, forcing Lenovo to downgrade the resolution to SXGA+. That allowed Lenovo to take more orders, but before long these SXGA+ panels were sold out as well. So I am >98% certain that Lenovo is aware of the demand for IPS panels, or at least for very high quality panels in general.

Personally, for laptops, I would rather have high-end TN panels than IPS panels, because the latter tend to be heavier and consume more power (but please correct me if I am mistaken). Something like my Dell Latitude D820's WUXGA TN screen would suffice.

[automobus]

"SXGA" usually refers 1280×1024, which is 5:4, although some people have used it to refer to 1280×960, which is 4:3. If you were indeed talking about 1280×960, then you are right, only CRT monitors used 1280×960. But if you were asking about 1280×1024, the 770X and 770Z Thinkpads had 13.7" 1280×1024, and of course many 17" and 19" LCD monitors use this resolution as well.

Indeed, I was asking about 1280×960. Besides some ThinkPad 770, I know that other companies produced laptops with 5:4 SXGA screens. 5:4 SXGA was very common in 18" monitors, too.

[aceo07]

Which Thinkpad has 1600x1200 on a 14" display? I definitely wasn't aware of that one.

[pianowizard]

Which Thinkpad has 1600x1200 on a 14" display?

None. The only 14.1" UXGA laptops I am aware of are the Dell Latitude c610 and Inspiron 4100.

[bill bolton]

Lenovo should already know that lots of people want IPS.

Perhaps Lenovo "already knows that" your unbounded quanitity of "lots" actually enumerates to a very small fraction of the ThinkPad market.

If I remember correctly, when Lenovo was selling 15.0" T60p's with UXGA IPS screens, the demand was so high that these screens were sold out quickly, forcing Lenovo to downgrade the resolution to SXGA+. That allowed Lenovo to take more orders, but before long these SXGA+ panels were sold out as well. So I am >98% certain that Lenovo is aware of the demand for IPS panels, or at least for very high quality panels in general.

Unless we know what quantity of IPS panels they started out with for the T60p, its a pretty pointless observation. If the supply was very limited, selling out quickly doesn't indicate that the market is necessarily significant.

Cheers,

Bill B.

[Utwig]

Here is T420s:
Original Japanese article: http://journal.mycom.co.jp/articles/201 ... index.html
Translated: http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... index.html

Sandy bridge graphics, 2,5" drive. From the pictures I estimate screen resolution to be 1366x768.

[penartur]

Here is T420s:
Original Japanese article: http://journal.mycom.co.jp/articles/201 ... index.html
Translated: http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... index.html

Sandy bridge graphics, 2,5" drive. From the pictures I estimate screen resolution to be 1366x768.

Matt Kohut already said on lenovo forums that there will be an option of 1600x900 for T420.

[khtse]

Hmm... I don't see anyone mentioning this above
http://www.lifeatmost.com/notebook/leno ... ge-laptop/

Apparently the X series finally got a redesigned chassis and all those new button changes introduced in the -10 Thinkpads model. But the size of the LCD changed from 12.1 to 12.5... moving to 16:9 I guess? Sigh, that means I cannot transfer the AFFS LCD on my X200 to there

EDIT: Just checked, the already announced E220s also spot a 12.5" screen, with resolution of 1366 x 768. I guess the one on the X220 will be the same one.

[khtse]

More pics of the X220 here

http://www.51nb.com/viewnews-63147.html
http://www.51nb.com/viewnews-63179.html

Good news: USB3.0
Bad news: LCD latches are gone. (doesnt bother me, but I'm sure it does bother some users)

[penartur]

Good news: USB3.0
Bad news: LCD latches are gone. (doesnt bother me, but I'm sure it does bother some users)

It was already said there that it is just some pre-production proof-of-concept modelling; on early pictures of T410 it also was without latches, but with two ThinkLights.
So absence of latches on these chinese pics doesn't mean anything.

[dsvochak]

Intel kills sandy bridge chipset shipments after admitting design flaw

[Summilux]

It was also said that Sandy Bridge-based laptops wouldn't ship until the end of February due to restrictions imposed by Intel (who was left with a surplus of i3).

[ThinkRob]

More pics of the X220 here

http://www.51nb.com/viewnews-63147.html
http://www.51nb.com/viewnews-63179.html

Good news: USB3.0
Bad news: LCD latches are gone. (doesnt bother me, but I'm sure it does bother some users)

Are we sure that those aren't mockups? I mean... something just seems "off" about them.