The iPad has a 4:3 screen resolution. What gives, Thinkpad?

[cksubs]

The iPad has a 4:3 resolution. This resolution wasn't chosen because the screens were "easy to source" or "the industry is going through a display ratio change". The resolution was chosen because Apple designers think 4:3 is the *absolute best* resolution for holding in your hand, and thus that's what they put in their product.

The iPads are currently 1024 x 768 pixels, but you can be sure that resolution will shoot up in the very near future. Double in each dimension, likely.

The official response from Lenovo when they made the switch:
http://www.lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox ... nge-again/

"Since these manufacturers make more selling TV displays than laptop displays, the PC vendors have almost zero say in this change. We simply have to adapt. As much as I would like it to be so, 4:3 is not coming back."

"It's great for the consumer, but a PC manufacturer making a large investment in LCD manufacturing is highly unlikely."

- Matt Kohut, "Lenovo Worldwide Competitive Analyst"

Apple sure hasn't adapted. They've just sold a metric F-ton of 4:3 iPads. And it's BECAUSE they make huge investments in their hardware, not in spite of it.

Today I've been searching for the best possible 4:3 Thinkpad on craigslist instead of buying a new top-of-the-line model. Great job, Lenovo.

That's my editorial for today. Not meant to be flaming/trolling, just want to get a discussion going on the lack of decent Thinkpad screens.

---
sig

[rumbero]

While 4:3 might be nice given a decent resolution, it doesn't hurt to have 16:10 which preserves the vertical pixel amount. I would be much more concerned about the absence of Flexview display options.

Said that, i finally finished my T61+ project: I placed a T61 mainboard with Intel GPU into a 15" T60 case, and added a brandnew Boe Hydis UXGA Flexview display on top. Together with a T9300 Penryn CPU and a full 8GB of RAM this has become a dream come true. A pity one can't order that nowadays. So i guess i am also just "yet another lost customer".

[cksubs]

While 4:3 might be nice given a decent resolution, it doesn't hurt to have 16:10 which preserves the vertical pixel amount. I would be much more concerned about the absence of Flexview display options.

Said that, i finally finished my T61+ project: I placed a T61 mainboard with Intel GPU into a 15" T60 case, and added a brandnew Boe Hydis UXGA Flexview display on top. Together with a T9300 Penryn CPU and a full 8GB of RAM this has become a dream come true. A pity one can't order that nowadays. So i guess i am also just "yet another lost customer".

That computer is a monster, well done. Wish I could order one today.

[dsvochak]

just want to get a discussion going on the lack of decent Thinkpad screens.

There are a lot of "discussions" on that topic all over thinkpads.com.

[bgalakazam]

After 2 years of raging, I think I have actually settled. Right now I have a T60 with QXGA (2048*1536) and that screen is a beast. I will do T61 motherboard sometime in the future.

I am, however, willing to settle for a 15.4" 16:10 WUXGA (1920*1200) (which are also gone now), especially since there are some models (like the Dell Precision M4400) which natively support Core 2 Quad Q9200 and QX9300 12MB cache. (I even found a Toughbook with i5 and 15.4" WUXGA, but form factor was bad). The loss in vertical pixels is only minimal when going QXGA to WUXGA and actual physical vertical space is less than 1 inch.

I was angry that 4:3 got killed, but I am now angry that 16:10 also got killed.

[pianowizard]

Vertical space is extremely important indeed. For a couple years, I had at least one of my many 1920x1200 desktop LCDs rotated into 1200x1920, giving me even more vertical real estate than QXGA or 2560x1600. Recently, to make my monitors look more "normal", I rotated them back into landscape and tried to get used to having only 1200 pixel rows, but that felt very restrictive and so this morning I converted one of these screens back into portrait mode.

On the other hand, it wouldn't make sense to use 1920x1080 in portrait mode because having 1080 pixel columns isn't wide enough. For a short while, several 23" 2048x1152 monitors were made and these might work okay in portrait. I have two such monitors (the Samsung 2343BWX and the Dell sp2309w), but neither of them can be rotated.

[Utwig]

16:9 kills portrait mode and thus all tables after X61T have less horizontal portrait pixels with each generation. And to get 1050 vertical landscape pixels you used to get in 12" or 14" (and 14" of 4:3 is less bulky than 14" 16:9) you need to buy 15.6" beast.

Also apart from X220 and tablet there are no IPS screens since T60p and those are only 1366x768.

By now we could have had 300dpi displays with independent resolution.

[pianowizard]

By now we could have had 300dpi displays with independent resolution.

Samsung has recently introduced a 300dpi 10.1" 2560x1600 screen for tablets:

http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-10-1-2 ... -13151756/

They are smart enough to make it 16:10, not 16:9.

[bill bolton]

Apple sure hasn't adapted.

Since Apple isn't making 4:3 laptops, your agument fails entirely

[dr_st]

The iPads are currently 1024 x 768 pixels, but you can be sure that resolution will shoot up in the very near future. Double in each dimension, likely.

No, not very likely.

Since Apple isn't making 4:3 laptops, your agument fails entirely

Indeed.

[sir_synthsalot]

Why would you want 4:3 when you can have 16:9 with a gigantic bezel on the bottom of the screen? This is on a "no compromise" business laptop. The marketing people say it's better. 16:9 is better because you don't have black borders on the bottom and top of your screen when watching pirated movies. Also it has more pixels than 1440x900 so it's better.

[dr_st]

16:9 is better because you don't have black borders on the bottom and top of your screen when watching pirated movies.

Sure you do. Most movies (as opposed to TV shows) are significantly wider than 16:9 (the cinematic aspect ratio is around 2.35:1).

[ZaZ]

Vertical space is extremely important indeed. For a couple years, I had at least one of my many 1920x1200 desktop LCDs rotated into 1200x1920, giving me even more vertical real estate than QXGA or 2560x1600. Recently, to make my monitors look more "normal", I rotated them back into landscape and tried to get used to having only 1200 pixel rows, but that felt very restrictive and so this morning I converted one of these screens back into portrait mode.

On the other hand, it wouldn't make sense to use 1920x1080 in portrait mode because having 1080 pixel columns isn't wide enough. For a short while, several 23" 2048x1152 monitors were made and these might work okay in portrait. I have two such monitors (the Samsung 2343BWX and the Dell sp2309w), but neither of them can be rotated.

I had a UXGA Dell Monitor on my desktop in portrait mode. 1200x1600 is perfect for internet/office. I found 1920x1200 to be tall and I don't think 1152 is quite wide enough.

[cksubs]

Since Apple isn't making 4:3 laptops, your agument fails entirely

That only supports my argument, really. Apple puts widescreen displays in their laptops because widescreen laptops are good for widescreen movies, beautiful demos at the Apple store, etc. It's a great screen for a consumer laptop.

They make/source so many widescreen displays that putting one in the iPad would have been quick and cheap.

Despite that, they still went with 4:3 displays because that's a better resolution for a tablet.

A 4:3 display is also better for a business laptop. But Lenovo went the cheap and easy route, not the route that makes the best products.

---
sig

[cksubs]

No, not very likely.

A iPad with a doubled 4:3 resolution will be coming out in September, spring, or next September. Think what you wish, but it's 2 months to just over a year until that resolution doubles.

So, yeah. "Likely."

[dr_st]

A iPad with a doubled 4:3 resolution will be coming out in September, spring, or next September. Think what you wish, but it's 2 months to just over a year until that resolution doubles.

I'm sorry - was there an announcement I missed? Or do you work for Apple and have inside information?

A 4:3 display is also better for a business laptop. But Lenovo went the cheap and easy route, not the route that makes the best products.

Lenovo and every other company making business laptops without exception.

[pianowizard]

I'm sorry - was there an announcement I missed?

Did you see the URL I provided above? Both LG and Samsung have made tablet panels with super high pixel densities. At least one of these panels has been confirmed to be 2560x1600. Even if the iPad won't be using one of these, some other tablets will.

Why is it so hard to believe that the iPad res will go up?

[cksubs]

Did you see the URL I provided above? Both LG and Samsung have made tablet panels with super high pixel densities. At least one of these panels has been confirmed to be 2560x1600. Even if the iPad won't be using one of these, some other tablets will.

Why is it so hard to believe that the iPad res will go up?

"There are 2048 × 1536 iPad prototypes in Cupertino." - Well sourced quote from John Gruber, author of Daring Fireball. http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/cold_ ... na_display

It's *ridiculous* to think that higher-res iPads aren't coming. Who knows exactly when, but soon.

---
sig

[Brian10161]

I just like how the analysts and that decide what YOU want.

Oh well, many other entities that do that too

[bill bolton]

Despite that, they still went with 4:3 displays because that's a better resolution for a tablet.

So quit whinging about laptops then