Widescreen LCD's on ThinkPads: This is an upgrade?!

[dhinged]

I'm still using an ancient ThinkPad T60p from 2007 that works great for web development and personal use, and I'd sure like to upgrade but widescreen laptops either just are awkward or take up too much space on my desk or I lose visual height or text shrinks.

I see a sideview of the ThinkPad T410 Intel Core i5 4GB Memory 14.1" Notebook, which is an upgrade in every way except that... it's 1280x800 resolution. And... my T60p is 1440x1050.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications ... =WEM4417BY

So I gain speed and memory at the expense of something I notice every day... the screen... by a long shot. A lot of screen. If I can up the resolution, then text shrinks.

Why can't there just be 4:3 or 3:2 or at least 16:10 Windows laptops anymore that aren't detachable tablets with SSD drives? Can we please just get a normal work laptop again?

Moderator edit: Moved thread (from the T6x-forum), and modified title to be a little more (/better!) descriptive...

[Medessec]

Welcome to the new age. Where laptops are going forwards in technology, but backwards in quality. Join us in our disappointment and frustration!

Almost every laptop nowadays is made in the 16:9 aspect ratio, including the Thinkpads. There are some oddities, such as the MacBooks, and the Chromebook Pixel... plus tablets are being made in 16:10 and 3:2(well, I'm pretty sure a tablet just wouldn't work in 16:9). Laptops almost always come in 1920x1080, and some 3K displays are being shipped now(3200x1800), but you won't be seeing any taller resolutions.

The last and absolute best all-original Thinkpad laptop in the 4:3 format is the 15" T60p. The T601F Frankenpad is the T60p with a T61 motherboard, basically your best and most cost-effective shot at getting a 4:3 machine you can rely on. If you're willing to compromise to 16:10, the T410 or the W500 would pretty much be the end of the line. Some T410s have 1440x900, which is pretty good for 14". But the W500 has 1920x1200 at 15", so if you're craving pixel density, that's the way to go. You want any hardware newer than that- you're probably going 16:9.

[Tasurinchi]

As Medessec points above you can get a 1440x900 screen on those T410's, which is still a decent resolution. You'll loose pixels vertically though, but it's the best you can get on 14.1"

And don't forget the 4:3 14" T61 models, you can get one with 1400x1050 as well

[dr_st]

Well, 14" 8:5 widescreens were limited to 1440x900, which is indeed a downgrade from the 1400x1050 available on 4:3 14".

However, 14" 16:9 screens, like on the T420, have 1600x900, which is worse for height, but better in width.

[RealBlackStuff]

And then there are the 1600x1200 screens which can be used in the above T601F Frankenpads.
They are Flexview IPS screens.
If you search hard enough, there are even ones with a superb LED-backlight ex factory!

[dhinged]

It's ironic manufacturers are making only widescreen laptops these days when most often you'll be reading a webpage which is vertical-scroll and tons of whitespace on the side. I do own a widescreen laptop and the extra width is only useful for spreadsheets and sometimes coding though I lose either height or text size or desk space... 4:3 is perfect, and I could probably handle a 15" T61 but kitchen table space is limited and it's extra bulk carrying it around or putting it on a table or counter that is not guaranteed to fit a 15" well wherever I am (I've coded in a bar before).

[pianowizard]

plus tablets are being made in 16:10 and 3:2(well, I'm pretty sure a tablet just wouldn't work in 16:9)

I corrected you in another thread but you have continued to spread misinformation:

1) All incarnations of iPads have been 4:3.

2) There have been very, very few 3:2 tablets. Currently, only the Microsoft Surface Pro 3 is 3:2, and it barely qualifies as a tablet because it's far more powerful than what a tablet is supposed to be. Previously, only the Barnes & Noble Nook HD+ was 3:2 (which I had), but it's no longer "being made".

3) There are plenty of 16:9 tablets.

It's ironic manufacturers are making only widescreen laptops these days when most often you'll be reading a webpage which is vertical-scroll and tons of whitespace on the side.

On a widescreen, you aren't supposed to maximize your browser. Open the browser to roughly 1000 - 1200 pixels across, and put another window next to it.

I used to like 1400x1050. It's obviously better than 1280x800 and 1440x900. In terms of total pixel count, it also beats 1600x900 by ~2% (though side-by-side viewing is easier on 1600x900). But nowadays it's so easy to find 13.3" and 14.0" laptops with 1920x1080 (which beats 1400x1050 both vertically and horizontally) that I no longer miss 1400x1050.

[brchan]

The main benefit of 16:9 is being able to have 2 windows (or more) open side by side for very comfortable viewing (assuming at least 1600x900). For this purpose, SXGA+ is decent most of the time, and I assume UXGA would be even better. Only QXGA would just be able to beat FHD in horizontal pixels.

Of course, the loss of vertical pixels on widescreen laptops is a large drawback, as well as a clunkier form factor to a less extent. I personally prefer 16:10 since it combines the better use of vertical space of 4:3 displays and the increased horizontal space of 16:9 displays for easier side-by-side document viewing.

[pianowizard]

The main benefit of 16:9 is being able to have 2 windows (or more) open side by side for very comfortable viewing (assuming at least 1600x900).

IMO, it's still far from comfortable on 1600x900. I wouldn't want this resolution unless the screen is smaller than 13.0", like Panasonic's 12.5" SX and NX series.

Surprisingly, 1680x1050 feels significantly better than 1600x900 or 1600x1200 for side-by-side viewing. But of course, 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 would be much better.

[Pokrzept]

The main benefit of 16:9 is being able to have 2 windows (or more) open side by side for very comfortable viewing (assuming at least 1600x900). For this purpose, SXGA+ is decent most of the time, and I assume UXGA would be even better. Only QXGA would just be able to beat FHD in horizontal pixels.

Of course, the loss of vertical pixels on widescreen laptops is a large drawback, as well as a clunkier form factor to a less extent. I personally prefer 16:10 since it combines the better use of vertical space of 4:3 displays and the increased horizontal space of 16:9 displays for easier side-by-side document viewing.

You miss one VERY important thing - real surface area and vertical screen size measured in absolute units which determinates your productivity and comfort. Lately I had an T520 at my place and I was kinda shocked- its 15.6" screen was basically as high as screen in my x61. Why would I like to carry a long-like-a-train heavy brick that cannot provide me bigger working space which can be utilized comfortabely with no harm for my eyes. Take in consideration that -lets say - on same screen (equal vertical size) you get 1620 lines instead of 768 which means everything is twice smaller if you wont scale it. If you summarize that, this should take you to my point - side-by-side document veiwing surely isn't ergonomic, comfy nor healthy for you and your eyes.

Edit: Quick hint - my eyes are perfectly fine, I just had them tested for a new job .

[600X]

I agree with Pokrzept. I usually avoid using windows side by side unless I really have to. It's hardly comfortable, not even on a 1600x900 screen. You need at leat 1920x1080 and a giant surface area, which is something that laptops just don't have. I'm not ready to carry a 18" monster in my bag. And don't tell me FHD without scaling on 12" is what you call "viewing comfort". I even prefer working with side-by-side windows on my 1400x1050 screen. (on 15") That's what I call viewing comfort.

IMO, 16:10 should have become the widescreen standard. Apple got it right. However, I am aware that 4:3 is not perfect. The best aspect ratio should be the one that adapts to the widest variety of situations. I think that 3:2 would be the best compromise. I really hope that 3:2 becomes mainstream.

[ajkula66]

And don't tell me FHD without scaling on 12" is what you call "viewing comfort". I even prefer working with side-by-side windows on my 1400x1050 screen. (on 15") That's what I call viewing comfort.

^^^^^^^

This. Times a zillion.

1050 is the absolute minimum for me to work in M$ Word and not curse at the machine every seven seconds. Yes, I own a X301 which doesn't fulfill that requirement, but I do not do any editing on it for the reason previously stated.

IMO, 16:10 should have become the widescreen standard. Apple got it right.

Agreed 10001%.

However, I am aware that 4:3 is not perfect. The best aspect ratio should be the one that adapts to the widest variety of situations. I think that 3:2 would be the best compromise. I really hope that 3:2 becomes mainstream.

Having never used a 3:2 system I can't really comment on it, but for me personally going from 16:10 to 16:9 felt like a major step down, as ridiculous as it may sound.

For my personal set of circumstances, a 15.4" 1920x1200 is the best fit, with 15" 1600x1200 coming in as a close second. Everything else is...not that good.

My $0.02 only...

[dhinged]

It's ironic manufacturers are making only widescreen laptops these days when most often you'll be reading a webpage which is vertical-scroll and tons of whitespace on the side.

On a widescreen, you aren't supposed to maximize your browser. Open the browser to roughly 1000 - 1200 pixels across, and put another window next to it.

If I'm not supposed to maximize my browser on widescreen I might as well use a Mac, which makes it difficult to maximize windows period, and having to manually manipulate a bunch of windows is well, just a pain. 4:3 is fine with maximized windows.

I used to like 1400x1050. It's obviously better than 1280x800 and 1440x900. In terms of total pixel count, it also beats 1600x900 by ~2% (though side-by-side viewing is easier on 1600x900). But nowadays it's so easy to find 13.3" and 14.0" laptops with 1920x1080 (which beats 1400x1050 both vertically and horizontally) that I no longer miss 1400x1050.

I realize there are widescreen laptops and monitors with more pixel count than my T60p, but the other issues (that I mentioned) are that widescreen is unnecessary, takes up unnecessary desk space, or shrinks text for a smaller screen. I gain very little from widescreen and lose much more when it comes to laptops.

[ajkula66]

I realize there are widescreen laptops and monitors with more pixel count than my T60p, but the other issues (that I mentioned) are that widescreen is unnecessary, takes up unnecessary desk space, or shrinks text for a smaller screen. I gain very little from widescreen and lose much more when it comes to laptops.

Well...there are not too many choices left...

The only full-size 16:10 laptop standing - excluding Macs - is Panasonic CF-52 which is a fabulous machine (I own one in 15.4" WUXGA guise) but the price tag is not for the weak at heart and the unit itself is quite heavy.

Your other option would be to get a well-kept T61/p in the 4:3 1400x1050 format. These machines - when properly set up - can serve as daily drivers for the next few years.

My $0.02 only...

[RealBlackStuff]

Your other option would be to get a well-kept T61/p in the 4:3 1400x1050 format. These machines - when properly set up - can serve as daily drivers for the next few years.

Check this post if interested: http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.ph ... 70#p750370
PS: it's a first-come, first-go basis...

[pianowizard]

I usually avoid using windows side by side unless I really have to. It's hardly comfortable,

Viewing comfort depends on pixel density and the amount of scrolling. Without adjusting scaling settings, 120 - 150 DPI seems to be the most comfortable pixel density range for the majority of users as far as laptops are concerned. (For desktops, I would say 90 - 105 DPI.) And of course, we want to minimize the amount of scrolling, both vertically and horizontally.

Viewing windows side by side is to enhance productivity, not comfort.

And don't tell me FHD without scaling on 12" is what you call "viewing comfort".

I don't recall seeing anyone say such a thing. Again, see my comments above regarding what determines viewing comfort.

16:10 should have become the widescreen standard. Apple got it right....I think that 3:2 would be the best compromise. I really hope that 3:2 becomes mainstream.

Apple got it right not just once, but twice. When it first introduced widescreen laptops in 2001, Apple chose the 3:2 aspect ratio -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerBook_G4 . For a short while I had a PowerBook G4 with 15.2" 1440x960, and liked its shape quite a bit.

widescreen is unnecessary, takes up unnecessary desk space, or shrinks text for a smaller screen. I gain
very little from widescreen and lose much more when it comes to laptops.

What are you going to do about this? Build your own 4:3 laptop?

[ajkula66]

What are you going to do about this? Build your own 4:3 laptop?

He can buy my T50 once I get bored with it...

Price? Whatever the balance on my mortgage is on the day of the sale...

[exTPfan]

What are you going to do about this? Build your own 4:3 laptop?

Nope --- fellow forum members kindly built them for me --- see my sig.

[bit_twiddler]

To answer the OP:

The answer is No!

[pianowizard]

1050 is the absolute minimum for me to work in M$ Word and not curse at the machine every seven seconds.

So, 1920x1080 should be fine, isn't it? I think 14.0" FHD is a pretty nice form factor. 15.6" FHD is starting to get too wide.

Nope --- fellow forum members kindly built them for me --- see my sig.

This is a fairly short-term solution though. How much longer will T61-era laptops stay useful? My Panasonic Let's Note CF-Y9 is comparable in performance to the T61, and these days I am just using it for playing MP3 because it no longer gives me the power that I want.

[Pokrzept]

This is a fairly short-term solution though. How much longer will T61-era laptops stay useful? My Panasonic Let's Note CF-Y9 is comparable in performance to the T61, and these days I am just using it for playing MP3 because it no longer gives me the power that I want.

For next few years I guess. As long as you keep your machine maxed - T9300/T9500, 8 GiG of RAM and a proper SSD - it can provide really good user experience in any OS including latest Windows 10. And for an old 15" UXGA power-consuming-behemoth it still can provide over 3h of heavy run-time with an 9-cell battery (I have tested it lately with an BatteryEater under Windows 7). And even if something breaks up we can fix it in barely no-time for barely no-money (I still have 2 T60 and 1 T61 SXGA+ fully equipped units that costed me ~~ 150 $).

[ajkula66]

So, 1920x1080 should be fine, isn't it? I think 14.0" FHD is a pretty nice form factor. 15.6" FHD is starting to get too wide.

Yes. FHD on a 14" is likely as much as my eyes can take, presuming a good LCD like the one found on *40 series ThinkPads.

[600X]

On a side note, Samsung introduced a 16:10 Ultrabook. Might not have any effect but you never know, perhaps more 16:10 laptops will start popping up.

[Ibthink]

Samsung is a display manufacturer, so they can make their own panels.

I don´t see 16:10 coming back until other vendors (mainly HP, Dell and Lenovo) release at least one or two mainstream (meaning mass sold) 16:10 models. This Samsung model is a very premium, niche model for a small market.

[pianowizard]

Samsung is a display manufacturer, so they can make their own panels.

Does Microsoft make its own 3:2 panel for the Surface Pro 3?

[Ibthink]

No. They made a expensive custom order. Like Apple also did with the iPad.

Lenovo, HP and Dell mostly use standard parts, with some exceptions (Dreamcolor, the W540 FHD++ screen as well). 14" FHD IPS screens are now standard parts, as well as 12.5" HD IPS screens.

Of course Lenovo could make custom orders as well...but they had very bad experinces with that as far as I know - custom ordered parts are expensive, unless you buy them in bulk, like Apple, and expensive means less sales - take a look at the W70x desaster. IBM made custom displays back in the FlexView days too, with their own joint venture IDTech, and that failed, because it was to expensive (IDTech was sold off in 2005).

Consider one crucial point: We are not talking about small-volume product lines. ThinkPads, Latiudes, Elitebooks are sold in millions to companies. And still today, many of those have low res TN screens, thats why these are still options. Because many companies don´t care if the internal screen is good. They do care if a ThinkPad is more expensive than a competitor, because there is no low end screen option available, even if it is just 100 $ more expensive. So, if you hypothetically custom order a 15" QXGA screen for a W560 for example, you also need to custom order mass produced 1024x768 or 1400x1050 screens, to have these lower end options. You don´t have this problem with the Surface Pro 3, which also is a TabletPC, an entirely different area than Notebooks...

Its not always as easy as it seems. In two weeks everything will be different...

And don´t get me wrong, I would love to see 16:10 back, its my favourite format, although I am completely fine with 16:9. I just don´t see this happening until the industry goes back as a whole, we have to be realistic. The PC market is a low margin, high volume business.

[erik]

Does Microsoft make its own 3:2 panel for the Surface Pro 3?

that's a samsung LTL120QL01-001 made specifically for the SP3.

[ajkula66]

The PC market is a low margin, high volume business.

Unless we're talking about Apple or Panasonic.

[exTPfan]

In two weeks everything will be different...

In two weeks, everything is the same --- just a warmed over T430, called a T450.

[Qing Dao]

I really can't buy the excuse that laptop manufacturers are being twisted by panel manufacturers into accepting whatever the panel manufacturers wish to produce. If Lenovo or any other laptop manufacturer wants a 16:10 or 4:3 screen, they can have them. There are tons of different panels out there with different sizes, resolutions, dpi, specs, connectors, etc from tiny 3" panels on a phone to massive 60"+ television panels. The panel manufacturers produce what their customers want to buy. The problem is that nobody wants to risk coming out with a 16:10 laptop because let's face it, the masses want their "widescreen" "HD" "1080p" and "4k" screens, if they even care at all. The only reason Apple has been able to continue with 16:10 is by selling "retina" displays.