Give or Take an Inch?
Can an inch really make a difference?
Two of my favorite leadership ThinkPad offerings have been the X300 and the T400s. We used our best technology, engineering, and design talent, to create some of most amazing ThinkPad’s ever made. Even though one is called an X and the other T, they are in some ways quite similar. They both have an onboard optical drive, for example. Of course there are also many key differences between them such as processor speed, docking capability, hard file capacity, battery life, thickness, weight, and of course keyboard design. The T400s was the first to sport the big escape and delete keys. One significant difference that is often discussed and debated is screen size. The X300 models use a 13.3″ screen and the T400s uses a 14.1″. It’s amazing how a difference of about an 1″ can get people talking.
The 13.3 is 11.4% smaller in overall viewing area
I thought it would be interesting to poll my Design Matters readers to understand your preference for screen size. Lets assume we are talking about a hypothetical 2 spindle machine where everything is equalized except for screen size. There is a very slight difference in DPI and of course the 14″ version would be a bit heavier. The increased glass size adds about a half pound of system weight.
Thanks for your continued interest in helping us shape future ThinkPad offerings. I’m looking forward to seeing the results of the poll.
David Hill
Lenovo Meet the Modder Dean Liou
Lenovo Meet the modder- Chris Blarsky Dairy 2
Lenovo Meet the modder- Chris Blarsky Dairy 1
Lenovo H320 desktop
December 17th, 2009 2:46 pm
I don’t think the screen size — when we’re talking about the difference between 13.3” and 14.1” — makes a difference; what is crucial however is the resolution.
I have been wanting a T Series with a 13.3” screen like the X301 has but with the power of a notebook TDP processor and higher performance graphics than merely Intel integrated.
Thinking more about the way you pose your question, the increase in screen size if only by an inch tends to affect the component choice and build weight of the laptop and so it’s not really fair to say that they have exactly the same specs but the difference is screen size because that’s never actually true. What do you have to sacrifice for an inch? What do you gain by losing it?
Personally I am encouraged by the designs coming from Lenovo but at present you do not make a model that fits my ideal weight vs. performance measure, a ‘T300′ quite possibly would.
December 17th, 2009 2:50 pm
The important thing to me is vertical resolution. Adding horizontal size doesn’t help, since applications like web pages and word processing documents need vertical space and are narrower than the screen.
David, is there any chance Lenovo could get a display with the *height* of a 14.1″ display and the *width* of the 13.3″ display, with the weight halfway inbetween?
December 17th, 2009 2:52 pm
Jon, Thanks for the feedback. I pointed out that the 14.1″ version would be about a half pound heavier. What i didn’t want to get wrapped up in was a extended discussion about number of USB ports, etc. Trying to just understand screen size preference.
December 17th, 2009 3:01 pm
Footprint is the most important thing. I never understood this fad to make laptops thin. What’s the point of having a thin 14 or 15 inch machine when you can have the same features, specs and all, in something that takes up less space on a desk?
December 17th, 2009 3:05 pm
David, your post is so meaningful to me right now. Yesterday I questioned my self what to buy: either x301, or t400s. Weight is not important for me and not taking into consideration number of USB ports, processor etc. I’d prefer t400s, just because of the screen. I have a 14.1″ T60 right now and my fiancee has X60 and I really can’t work on it, too small for me. I prefer to have many opened windows one at a time. I also tried 13.3″ screens on other manufacturers and it looks like it is not mine…
And when I start thinking about USB ports, new T400s keyboard, cool buttons with LEDs it becomes more sexier to me!
December 17th, 2009 3:07 pm
Bigger pixels stress the eyes less. Resolution doesn’t matter much for me, it’s the size of the pixels that does.
Also i think that more pixels in the height would be better. I don’t need more width, i ALWAYS have to scroll up or done, never left or right. Add to that the trend of ribbons in MSO and such and you can understand my frustration with 16/9(10). I wish there was a thinkpad that was able to display one A4 page in real size.
Make it happen, or i’ll stop reading this blog
.
December 17th, 2009 3:15 pm
The graphic in your post says:
13.3in WXGA with 107dpi
14.1in WXGA with 113dpi
If the resolution is the same in both cases (WXGA), wouldn’t the smaller screen have a *higher* DPI?
December 17th, 2009 3:24 pm
Steven, good call. The diagram originally posted was incorrect. I just fixed it.
December 17th, 2009 3:46 pm
I would like the impossible: A 13.3″ Thinkpad that is easily transportable but has 2 mini displayport connectors and a Core i7 processor. I.e. a mobile power house.
Seriously, there is no real difference between a 13.3 and 14″ laptop. Both open fine in economy (airplanes) and weight is negligible. The 14″ can probably get better runtime and have a slightly higher res display which is more important.
People who want size will go for a 11.6″ semi-notebook. Or a netbook.
Speaking of Core i7 processors, other than the Ideapad 350-Y or something like that, when will we see Core i7 Lenovo laptops? Dell, HP, ASUS all are shipping them… will trer be a Christmas present soon?
December 17th, 2009 3:55 pm
The small difference in screen area is secondary to me. What I appreciate most about these screens is that they have a 1440×960 resolution at all — compared to, e.g., the 13″ MacBook with only 1280×800.
December 17th, 2009 4:22 pm
I agree with Sara McPhearson. I have an X301 and it is super annoying that there’s space for a 14.1″ 4:3 screen, but a 13.3″ 16:10 screen was used instead (with lots of wasted space above/below. The X301 is great besides the small (and ultra-low-contrast) screen.
December 17th, 2009 4:39 pm
Brian, There is no wasted space in a X301. The space above the display is bristling with wireless antennas for ultimate performance and a web camera. The space below is filled with ribbon cables, hinges, and other such electronics that make it work.
December 17th, 2009 4:50 pm
I agree with the comments above – this relentless trend towards widescreen displays winds me up something chronic. The whole of the IT world is geared up to vertical scrolling but we are forced by the monitor/glass suppliers into accepting the much less useful widescreen ratio used for plasma displays, (apparently) purely for economies of scale.
David, what is your/Lenovo’s view of this trend?
December 17th, 2009 4:59 pm
Throw out two inches for that matter, just don’t take away my pixels.
It’s great to see 1400×900 available on the 12″ models as well. I want lots of pixels packed tight for portability; high dpi works well in portable situations. Docks and external devices can complete the home/office.
It does make me wonder why the 14-inchers can’t do any better than the 12-inchers, though, resolution-wise.
December 17th, 2009 5:05 pm
laptopbeast, the shift in aspect ratio is not driven by, or is within the control of the PC industry. The glass makers are driving this all the way. You can read more on this here.
http://lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/?p=220
December 17th, 2009 5:34 pm
David, thanks – really interesting. I’d taken to having a side-mounted taskbar too!
It certainly seems there is a huge dissatisfaction here though – there must be a neat design solution to this problem that nobody has thought of yet? Straying slightly off-topic…
Back on-topic – my last ThinkPad was a 14.1″ and I found that too small for me! I either want a >15″ with some decent horsepower or a 10″-11″ netbook for dabbling.
December 17th, 2009 6:34 pm
To me it is very rarely a question of just a screen size. It is always a tradeoff between physical size, resolution, weight and pixel size. My sight isn’t fantastic so I like big letters and if too small pixels are chosen, you can ask Windows to use big fonts.. but it doesn’t really look nice everywhere.
Anyway: difference in physical size, resolution, weight and pixel size may be small, but we are never seeing effect of just one variable change. It’s always about a combination of several and several small changes can add to a significant change.
December 17th, 2009 6:40 pm
David – re. wasted space on an X301. Compare the screen/bezel with, say, an X61. Both have antennae in the screen. The X301 has a webcam, but you don’t need an inch of vertical space to support a webcam (assuming you even *want* one, which I most certainly don’t). The X61 even puts its Bluetooth adapter in the screen bezel, and it doesn’t seem to affect the size.
Currently, this is my biggest obstacle to buying another Lenovo. You simply don’t make a small enough laptop any more; the laptops at the small end have miniscule screens with tons of wasted space. I especially don’t want a DVD drive.
The X61 was pretty much an ideal design in my mind – exactly as wide as the keyboard and no wasted screen bezel. It could be shorter from hinge to lap (which may fit better with a modern widescreen display), but otherwise, no change needed.
December 17th, 2009 6:51 pm
a 13.3″ 16:9 display is 0.31″ wider than a 13.3″ 16:10 display. i’ll take 13.3″ in both cases, but only if resolution is higher than WXGA. assuming we’re talking about 1366×768 here, 768 vertical pixels simply aren’t enough. 1600×900 in 13.3″ might actually be usable.
December 17th, 2009 7:42 pm
Hi David,
Thanks for posing the question — for me, 13″ is an ideal size. Any smaller and it’s just too small for any thing besides email, and any larger just isn’t as portable. With the ability to hook up an external monitor, I don’t miss the extra real estate afforded by an extra 1″ of screen.
I own laptops with 13″ and 15″ screens, and I never travel with the larger screen. Half a pound really makes a difference on your shoulder or back. I would love to see a T-series with a 13″ screen — a balance of portability and power.
One of the key screen issues for me is brightness rather than pixel density. I’d take a 300 nit 1280 X 800 over a dimmer 1400 X 900 any day.
December 17th, 2009 7:51 pm
I prefer higher dpi. That is all.
December 17th, 2009 9:02 pm
If they are both WXGA then I would take 13.3″ but I would be only partially satisfied because what I consider the 14.1″ size portable enough for me so I would definitely get it if it provided higher resolution than 13.3″.
BTW, I’m also concerned about the ratio shift and lack of vertical resolution. I’m currently using a 14.1″ SXGA+ T60 which is great. The image quality isn’t too good though.
December 17th, 2009 9:05 pm
I did this very comparison hands-on with 13.3″ and 14.1″ laptops, all 16:9, most with 1366×768 and one 13.3″ with 1600×900.
I preferred the higher resolution, however 14.1″ with 1600×900 would be more ideal as 14.1″ for keyboard rest area was more comfortable for me; I’m very tall and have larger than average hands.
My ideal next-gen notebook is a 14.1″ PixelQi 1600×900 with an i7-640UM and an 8-cell battery.
Two MLC SSDs and RAID 1 for increased read performance and redundancy, and wireless everything. I don’t care about CD or DVD or Blu-ray. I’d also like a button in the Trackpoint.
December 17th, 2009 9:06 pm
I’ll take the larger screen every day. But then again, I use it for development not just email.
It’d be nice if you’d reference the screen as X by Y millimeters rather than diagonal inches. It passes a whole lot more information.
December 17th, 2009 11:05 pm
14.1″ is really too large for everyday portable notebook.
December 18th, 2009 12:42 am
As Sara said, vertical resolution is what matters most to me. I’d also like the largest screen size possible (ie as little bezel as possible) plus the highest resolution (ie higher DPI). And with Intel graphics not Nvidia/ATI as I prefer battery life over performance.
And yes I do want a webcam (my one regret with my current Thinkpad was not getting one) although it could be placed elsewhere (look at where the microphone is on the Nintendo DS – the hinge).
That all said and I done, I’m a big guy (6′4″) so I like big keyboards and am happy with 15″ machines. It would be nice to see an X500s.
December 18th, 2009 1:11 am
Interesting question, David. Thank you.
There is a problem in your figure. You have no choice but change to 16:9 era next year, so the DPI will be a little different. I made a brief chart below.
Now
13.3″ 1440×900 16:10 128
14.1″ 1280×800 16:10 107
14.1″ 1440×900 16:10 120
Next
13.3″ 1366×768 16:9 116/118
13.3″ 1600×900 16:9 133(Not real product)
13.4″ 1366×768 16:9 116
14.0″ 1366×768 16:9 112
14.0″ 1600×900 16:9 131
14.0″ 1680×945 16:9 131
The problem of X301’s successor (although X301 will be discontinued) are 2:
1. You can’t have 1600×900 in 13.3″ 16:9
1) no maker do this.
2) even Yes, high cost and too high DPI=133
3) 1366×768 is good enough but you already put 1440×900 in X301.
2. Placement is difficult for SLIM 2-spindle
1) X301 approves 1.8″ HDD and Polymer BTY are required. Both are $$$. People expect mainstream-value great ThinkPad. Sorry I love TP very much.
2) Cylindrical BTY + ODD will leave 2.5″ HDD a problem if SLIM.
You will like 14″ because a BGA SV ARD + 512MB GPU is possible. But it is a in-between product since
1.Performace/Cost are not good as T400/ARD
2.Portability/BTY Life is not good as X200/ARD
My ideas for ThinkPad at 2H’10 even 2011 will be:
1. 14.0″ 16:9 slim-T, 2-spindle, like X200 and X200s, only differ on bottom case and GPU performance (15W/25W)
2. 13.3″ 16:9 large-X, 1-spindle. It is sad that 12.1″ 16:9 is dying while 11.6″ 16:9 is too small for X. And 13.3″ for 1-spindle ThinkPad seems to big.
Regards,
Jimmy
December 18th, 2009 1:33 am
For me, the screen resolution is one of the most important factors. I went from a T40 with SXGA+ screen down to the X61t with SXGA+ screen and didn’t miss the loss in screen size. In fact, I find the SXGA+ resolution on the x61t to be more pleasurable to use.
Given the choice, I wouldn’t mind a WUXGA screen on the 13.1″. If it was down to either an WSXGA+ screen on a 13.1″ or a WUXGA screen on a 14″, I’d be willing to sacrifice a little bit of the extra weight for the higher resolution screen.
December 18th, 2009 3:31 am
sketchy reviews of the X300/301 docking solution is mostly what pointed me to the T400s.
switching from a 1400×1050 14″ T60 display to this 1440×900 doesn’t feel like much of an improvement for daily office work. Movies might be wide-screen and better on the wide display, but is there really any research into the best screen form for actual work (office, drawing, cad, etc)?
December 18th, 2009 8:45 am
I prefer higher dpi and the 12″ Screen
December 18th, 2009 1:09 pm
David,
This comes down to total pixels for me; I chose the higher dpi option and less weight at the same time: a great situation! I didn’t see a 200+ppi option on your graph, or I would have chosen it. My experience (and I’m young, so my eyes are still good) is that I’m happier with extra pixels, always, full stop, end of story.
I’m not clear why getting ultra-high-res screens out there has taken so very long, compared to other advances. I’m sure it has to do with pixel-based window managers in major OS’es, but to be clear about what kind of person I am, the IBM T221 was an object of lust of mine for many, many years.
December 18th, 2009 1:38 pm
Definitely 4:3 screens doesn’t matter if it’s 14″ or 15″.
I couldn’t understand how people can use wide screens in 13″ or 14″.
It’s a shame to see how the screen industry lead everything.
December 18th, 2009 2:05 pm
smaller = better (though 12-inches at that res would be hard to see). it’s no accident that apple standardized on a 13″ screen (though I think they could have gone one step up on resolution)
I would certainly have opted for an x301 over my t400s if not for
* crippled processor
* no dock
* non-hot-swappable DVD bay
btw I’ll note that the “snap” feature of Win7 makes it much, much easier to do side-by-side editing on a widescreen machine. even makes me think I’ll be OK with 16:9 screens, though I’m happy with my 16:10 t400s.
December 18th, 2009 3:56 pm
>>David Hill Says:
>>The glass makers are driving this all the way.
So what we will be next, 18.5:10 ?
23.9:10 ?
We will end up with creeping line in place of computer monitor.
December 18th, 2009 5:15 pm
I prefer less weight, so I chosed the smaller screen. But right now I’m on a 1024×768 screen, and that’s just not enough pixels. Not in width nor in height. Generally I think more pixels is always preferrable, as long as the pixels is big enough to do their duty. This is a problem in small image sensors, but I don’t really know if it exists in the display world.
On the other problem, the format, I’ve seen that the Eizo 30″ screens can act as two portrait-oriented logical screens. May this be a solution on the higher-resolution widescreen ThinkPads? You could even make it act as a single screen configured that way, it might be helpful to those vertical pixel count hunting programmers.
My ideal ThinkPad is actually very widescreen. The reason to this, the only thing that matters to me (if I’m able to have a big computer too) is the keyboard and portability. Use the TrackPoint in a full keyboard and skip the touchpad, and the screen the proper size to fit in. I know Sony has done something like this – but they don’t have a good keyboard nor the TrackPoint.
That was my 50 cents worth of computer design today, now off-topic: What happened to the discussion about moving to the forum or not?
Is it too early to say happy christmas just yet? / O8h7w
December 18th, 2009 5:16 pm
If i can go back in time i would’ve chose the T400s i love my X301 but i want a bigger screen it would be really great to have 15+ inch T series with the same thickness of T400s but with touch and feel of the X301 because T400s is excellent in size but feels cheaper in quality compared with X series.
Thanks and good luck…
December 18th, 2009 5:21 pm
I forgot to mention how I use the ThinkPad as a student. I write stuff. Often while looking at something, listening to a class, speaking with folks or something. So the ability to look at something over the screen is rather pleasant. And what really matters is the keyboard, but I do need the screen to see what I write. I suppose this is how come Sony can sell such a thing, and maybe how they came up with the idea as well.
December 18th, 2009 5:46 pm
+1 for naming screen sizes as X by Y mm.
That really would be a great step in this all too conservative business… I don’t think it’s gonna happen.
But you can’t be else than positively surprised if you’re pessimistic enough from the start…
December 18th, 2009 6:23 pm
i repeat myself:
i need vertical resolution. Thats basically it, when it comes to screen size. Also i would prefer the lid to be as big as the screen, OK, i can tolerate the 3-4mm of the T41, but that’s it.
I would definitely go for a portrait laptop, seriously!
cheers
Hecke
December 19th, 2009 1:21 am
High Resolution, flat finish screen and dedicated graphics… Don’t care if it’s 13 or 14″.
December 19th, 2009 2:07 am
For me weight isn’t an issue. I don’t carry my machines far by hand anyway.. at work from my cube to a meeting room and back, at home from desk to dining room table and back.
So I picked the larger screen, because, hey, being on the far side of 40 means the bigger stuff is the easier it is to see!
For work I use spreadsheets. A lot. So to get the maximum horizontal amount showing on screen I often have the sheet zoomed to the smallest size I can read comfortably.
Frankly though, a better question would have been:
14.1″ screen less battery life
13.3″ screen more battery life
I would have voted for the 13.3″ with longer battery life.
December 19th, 2009 3:33 am
I would say 13.3″ for a 16:10 display. There is definitely a human eye strain limit on DPI — look at the Sony VAIO P as a perverse example of trying to squeeze too many pixels (1600×768) into a tiny space (8″)! I would highly suggest going with no less than 768 pixels vertically. Even Google has thought about this recently (http://googleblog.blogspot.com.....thers.html). I feel sorry for anyone who is forcing themselves to use a notebook LCD as a primary display in an office/home office environment, considering that 19″+ LCDs can be had for <$200!
December 19th, 2009 7:23 am
Vertical resolution all the way.
I have gone from x30 through to x61s – great aspect ratio.
I also have 13″ Macbook – hopeless.
If you can’t get 4:3 screens any more, go portrait. If you don’t, as Jimmy Chung pointed out, the next gen. screens will force the x-series to have such limited vertical resolution that they will only be useful when they are the same size as t-series.
So x-series ultralights as we know them will die, and be replaced by netbooks.
BTW for me cost is not an issue. My time is worth more than $. So I would pay a very hefty premium for 4:3. I can’t imagine going widescreen on a work notebook.
December 19th, 2009 1:02 pm
I agree with post #1 (by Jon Pritchard). Widescreens are not wider at all. They are just shorter, thus more profitable for manufacturers. For me “widescreen” means I see less lines of code on the screen of given size.
Back on topic. In case both systems have identical specs (besides dimensions) I choose smaller one.
December 19th, 2009 2:21 pm
I second the motion for more vertical viewing space. Widescreen is a waste, IMHO.
+ classic 4:3 form factor, from 13″ upwards
+ no wasted space left and right of the keyboard
+ no wasted space around the symmetric screen
+ 133 DIP (implement special features for people who need big characters)
+ IPS/Flexview LCDs or something better
+ preference for the model with docking station
+ classic keyboard without windows keys
December 20th, 2009 5:35 pm
Bigger viewing space is always more useful at this size range, but there are two key issues…
First: dont just add an inch, add more pixels, especially vertically
Second: the premise of a two spindle machine is an anachronism that can be afforded in this type of machine. While screen space is important, half a pound of glass is also adding costly weight as it is. The quarter pound of optical drive just has to go. In an age where even Microsoft offers tools for customers to install operating systems with USB sticks, I cant see dragging on with optical drives. Especially with USB around the corner and E-sata already here. The people who insist on living in the stone age are not really the folks who will champion or drive enthusiasm for this machine ie market it for you.
December 20th, 2009 5:42 pm
I means to add this to my earlier post: a third and even more crucual issue is to not just focus on screen size but screen….quality.
Again a machine of this type cant drag on with mediocre screens – that is the best way to lose customers to Apple. You want a sell a premium machine, make the primary interface a premium one. That mistake was already made on X301 and T400s, spoiling what would otherwise have been breakout machine that could have rejuvenated the brand.
Put a top notch screen this thing, whether it is 13 or 14 inch, make it a screen that is a PLEASURE to look at. Black levels below 0.30 cdm, contrast levels above 500:1 (I mean real life contrast as a neutral third party would test, not fudged manufacturer numbers to pad marketing materials)
In fact – the better the screen quality, the better the chance you can get away with making it 13″ instead of 14″.
December 21st, 2009 8:49 am
I would go for the higher DPI.
This is one of the reasons why I opted for a W500 over a T500: the WUXGA (1980×1200) screen which works out at 147 DPI. And it looks stunning.
December 21st, 2009 9:51 am
Hoping for an X61 refresh and a renewal of the 4:3 screens. I would also pay the increased manufacturing cost for this aspect ratio.
The keyboard with palm rests relative to the 12″ 4:3 screen was the most efficient design I’ve seen. A 10″ 16:9 offers approximately similar width, but lacks the screen height for reading or typing, and the body depth for a proper palm rest.
The 12″ 16:9 are as bulky as a 14″ T61 4:3, thereby not optimal for transport.
I’d infer that 4:3 are ideal for journalists, writers, and travelers while the 16:9 for graphics, CAD, multimedia and desktop replacements. Unfortunately I’d assume that most designers prefer 16:9 displays, forgetting about us 4:3 folks.
Both aspect ratios should continue to be produced.
December 23rd, 2009 1:52 am
Anything less than 15″ will have me using an external monitor at my desk, which makes me relatively indifferent to the precise screen size of a “portable.” Flexible connectivity with monitors (without a mess of adapters) becomes the most important factor.
I love the wide screen real estate of my 22″ monitor — I can open up two documents side by side at full height and still read them. At sub 15″ sizes opening side by side documents stops being practical, and I might start preferring a taller aspect ratio.
I’d be interested in a poll on how many Thinkpad users are buying laptops as desktop replacements. You see several of them in the comments here — people who want powerful features and buy a laptop knowing they’re mostly going to use it with a second monitor.
December 23rd, 2009 8:49 am
Hi,
[WXGA would be 1280x800? Way too small, really!]
I still think the diagram is wrong.
The X300 (as it stands before me right now) has a 1440×900 screen, which is WSXGA and which has 127DPI, not 113
I definitely do not want anything smaller than 127DPI, and am still waiting for a X2xx with WSXGA (no, please no X2×0s, I want WWAN and CPU too [btw, the CPU is the only thing that suck on the X300
])
Regards
Evgeni
December 23rd, 2009 4:49 pm
Evgeni,
13″ and 14″ displays are available in WXGA (1280×800) or WXGA+ (1440×900). We simply chose WXGA as the baseline comparison. With resolution and other system specs held constant, we were interested in what you all thought about the relative impacts of display size & weight. As pointed out in previous comments, there also is some, although relatively modest, impact to battery life (14″ has ~11% more display area to backlight).
Very interesting for us to see all the factors that come into play as customers consider display size. It’s certainly not as simple as 1″ more or less.
Aaron (I work for David Hill)
December 23rd, 2009 9:32 pm
IMHO, X30x is just about perfect as a compromise between size, performance and usability. Any smaller (and poorer resolution), it could be only a secondary computer nowdays. Any larger or heavier, it wouldn’t be portable enough. I’ve tried T400s, it’s nice, but I’d always choose X301 over it.
December 24th, 2009 2:52 am
I voted for 13.3″, although I would definitely prefer an even smaller screen (12.1, perhaps). The first thing I noticed about the X301 is the seemingly extra ‘pad’ space around the keyboard and the display. While I understand that this space is necessary to fit all the components, I can’t help but look at my X60s or X32 and how compact everything is.
Ideals aside, I much prefer the better screen resolution of the X301 over the X60s (non-SXGA+ modded), but I yearn for the compactness and portability of the X60s. I’m still much used to the smaller notebook for travel, but the 13.3″ is a good compromise for the larger display. I think the theoretical 14″ would feel too big, given the extra 0.5# and ~1″ larger footprint.
December 24th, 2009 7:07 pm
Aaron,
yeah, I thought this too later. But as you mentioned X300 and T400s, I had expected WXGA+ screens in the comparison
Thus count my 13.3″ vote as:
=>127DPI && <=13.3"
December 26th, 2009 3:23 pm
I’m surprised to see that high resolution and DPI are such an issue — I guess my eyes are older that many of yours!
When I think back to my older computers, I once was excited to have a 640 X 480 display, and was able to write just as much on that as I can now. Granted, if you work in fields where the extra real-estate is handy (video and photography come to mind), but since we’re talking ostensibly portable laptops in this situation, I still prefer a higher quality display (in terms of brightness, sharpness, and color) that a hundred or so pixels here and there.
December 27th, 2009 6:06 am
I voted for the least popular option – “no preference”. Explanation is as follows – if the difference is only in screen physical size (i.e. resolution stays the same), then I find both 13.3″ and 14.1″ solutions equally acceptable.
Between the two options discussed here – the weight difference is not so big (smaller than between 14.1″ and 15″/15.4″/15.6″), so the extra weight can be dealt with, especially on an ultralight 14″ model as the T400s.
DPI-wise they are also close, and most people who can handle one, can handle the other.
If I were to choose between these two, the screen size would be less important to me than all the other considerations, which are not the topic of this poll (i.e. hardware capabilities, expansion ports, keyboard layout, perceivable build quality, etc.)
December 27th, 2009 7:33 am
My preference is the display quality (especially contrast) and highest possible *vertical* resolution.
If I can dream the perfect display resolution size would be the good old 15″ 1600×1200 or 13″ 1400×1050, non-TN technology of course. Such products were available five years ago. I also agree with the statement said before that “Bigger pixels stress the eyes less”. My desktop monitor has 0.255 mm pixel size. I can’t stand those 0.27 or more.
As for the 4:3 (16:12) -> 16:10 -> 16:9 idiocy I’m wondering who actually wants it ? Going from 1600×1200 to 1920×1200 is still acceptable but makes the machine too big. The new silly idea of decreasing the vertical resolution from 1920×1200 to 1920×1080 only is no way at all. Do you realize that people use the machine for work ?
Widescreen also waste to much space around the keyboard. My old 12″ X31 is actually smaller than many of todays 10.1″ netbooks but still having perfect keyboard layout. Lenovo has missed the opportunity to refresh the unique S30 design to introduce a “killer” netbook. The X100e pictures which has leaked few weeks ago is just sad parody of ThinkPad.
I don’t understand why Lenovo is reinventing the whell. There used to be perfect IBM size/quality/features machines in the past. Just reborn them, please. That would be the best thing you can do.
December 27th, 2009 8:25 am
I’m used to a 4:3 1400×1050 display (124 dpi). To me that was a sweet spot in size and resolution. I don’t want to lose too much vertical resolution, so for 16:10 that means 1440×900 (going to 800 pixels vertically is too large a reduction).
As to whether an inch makes a difference, the 15″ 4:3 1600×1200 T-series Thinkpads had a dpi that was getting a bit high, and the chassis looked noticeably bigger than the 14″ chassis and so didn’t appeal so much (the current 15.4″ widescreen ones are even worse).
The T400s and X301 are the two machines that would be a decent replacement for my current machine (and they’re close to, but either side of 124dpi), but I haven’t seen either in real life so it’s hard to say. Gut feeling is a very slight preference for the 13″ display (excluding other differences between the machines).
I wish the bezels would shrink back to the previous small size, and the keyboard take the whole width of the machine (you could also place the speakers in the dead space above the keyboard). Since it’s a common complaint, an article explaining the current bezel size would be interesting, I’m sympathetic to one of the previous remarks which mentions the X61 having a slim bezel and packing antennae in somewhere. If you could tighten the bezel size I could have a 14″ display in the chassis space of an X301
Perhaps the larger X series machines should move to one spindle to minimise overall size and differentiate them from the smaller T series machines. I’m coming around to the idea of losing the second spindle, it isn’t used all that often and can be left to external solutions.
December 27th, 2009 11:23 am
Dave, your comment “there is no wasted space on a X301″ is unnecessarily high-handed, intemperate nonsense. When set beside the evidence of previous thinkpads and your own admission that screen sizes are controlled by glass manufacturers, you are simply backwards-justifying an enormous error in thinkpad design decisions which have devalued the brand. If you better marketed thinkpads, you would sell more and then have more clout to control output of glass manufacturers. as it stands, the acres of black plastic around the current family of x and t series laptops where there should be screen real estate must be addressed in the next generation.
This nonsense about “hinges and ribbons” requiring a huge lower bezel is an outright lie. Look at an x60s. If the upper bezel contains antennae/radios, move them elsewhere. although I simply so not believe your assertion. Again, see the x61. Also the internal DVD player is unnecessary. Remove that and you can use that space for the gubbins you may or may not have in the bezel, leaving only the webcam.
December 30th, 2009 4:54 pm
Oh! Someone said speakers. Skip those, really. On the X series, that is.
“Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” I don’t know who said it.
If I should shop a Thinkpad now, it would be X series. I want it as light as possible. So skip the speakers, the fingerprint sensor, the touchpad, the optical drive, anything. Except CPU, memory, screen, keyboard and Trackpoint. And a few USB connectors, power connector, displayport, a docking connector would be rather useful…
That was my off-topic design ideas again, sorry…
@Hecke: Our Thinkpads rather rectangular. Sometimes, when I need more vertical space, I simply rotate the screen and put my Thinkpad on it’s side. No, you can’t type, but it is a solution for reading. As long as the viewing angles of the display are not too bad.
December 31st, 2009 9:56 pm
Surely the display industry is pushing towards 16:10 or even 16:9 ratio, but computer manufactures aren’t putting up that much of a fight either.
And I don’t believe that computer manufactures can’t do anything against that. They could if they wanted, but the 16:10 or 16:9 ratio come in handy, as phrases like “Comes with widescreen ratio.” or “Widescreen display for improved work performance” are perfect for marketing…
If display industry are really successfully forcing computer manufacturers towards those ratios then it’s the dog’s tail wagging the dog.
I can only speak for myself, and having changed from a T43p to a T400s (after giving in on the 16:10 display and the new keyboard layout) I still miss the vertical resolution. The T400s with a 1400×1050 (maybe even optional IPS) panel would just be perfect. And I admit, the already high price would be even higher, but for a machine that’s expected to do the work for 2-4 years, that’s a price I’d gladly pay…
January 1st, 2010 3:52 am
I totally agree with moskito. Wouldn’t a T400s with 15″ 4:3 aspect be a dream? Especially for those who have owned a T43, T61, 15″ standard aspect in the past. Once one has used a 15″ 4:3 aspect 14″ widescreen is too small and 15.4″ widescreen abnormally wide.
January 2nd, 2010 2:04 pm
I might be in a minority but I actually prefer 16:9 aspect ratio. The biggest factor for me when it comes to the laptop screen is resolution (high dpi) and good contrast ratio of the panel. DPI on my t400s is perfect as it is, however the panel quality is absolutely bloody terrible. As for size I prefer a higher resolution 13.3″ screen just for portability. Would it ever be possible to get a portable thinkpad with a good screen (i.e. non-horrible contrast ratio)? Is this something that is dictated by the LCD manufacturing industry as well?
January 3rd, 2010 9:37 am
zenit: Lenovo is not willing to spent more than 2.99 USD on the display component so the horrible quality is as is. There used to be an offer published on this blog that Lenovo would make 15,000 ThinkPads with original display quality if there was at least 15,000 pre-orders for it. Looks a bit funny (and unbelievable) that Lenovo is not able to sell 15,000 notebooks with the same quality IBM was able to sell in 1,000,000 quantity.
January 4th, 2010 2:52 am
I agree with Sara and others who advocate for more vertical screen space. I know that screen manufacturers get more screens when they cut up LCD panels in widescreen dimensions versus standard aspect, but I’m willing to pay more for that 4:3 ratio.
Many displays now are only sold with the widescreen option, which is great when I’m watching a movie or gaming.. but when I’m working on a document/slide, or reading a webpage, it needs to “shrink” in order to fit the squat vertical of a widescreen, or I won’t be able to view the entire page at 100% on one screen.
January 4th, 2010 1:49 pm
Jimmy Chung : let me point you to the sony vaio z, with its gorgeous 13.1″ 1600×900 screen :p
January 4th, 2010 4:27 pm
i voted 13″, but i really prefer 12″…. althgouth it wasnt proposed.
Again, as many as pointed out, that’s not the culprit. Quality is, and screen quality of TP has been terrible to say the least…
Look at apple, at least they understood they should put IPS panel everywher but in cheap MB non pro. At least you could copy one of their good idea instead of a stupid idea?
As others, i also regret 4:3″ panel… I am looking at changing my X40 terrible panel for a AFFS panel. Problem is that the cabling is not even the same, so i need to engeneer an adaptor. great…
I made my mom buy a X200t mutlitouch( can use fingers)… and the screen doesnot even look that good because of the resistive coating… well, there were no other option to get a screen half decent… And i cant understand why you loose so much bezel space. Compared to my X40, that’s way terrible…
I wont change before we get OLED (if it ever comes). We’ll get: lighter, less consumption, way better quality… It wont be in 2010 it seems, my X40 will live one more year (at least)…
January 5th, 2010 1:37 pm
My views on x200 etc screens echoed here:
http://forums.lenovo.com/t5/X-.....d-p/190613
widescreen is nonsense; for children watching DVDs not grown-ups trying to work on docs.
I think I’ll try and locate a 2nd hand x61t with SXGA+ until lenovo sort themselves out. Until then Lenovo, expect devotees such as myself to start voting with their feet
January 8th, 2010 8:24 pm
First, I would like to second most of the others – the vertical space is what I need a lot when I’m working. I would really like 4:3. I switched from 15″ 1400×1050 Thinkpad to 14″ with the same resolution and it’s awesome. If you have to go for wide screen, still 900px vertical resolution is minimum for me. Provided that 13.3″ and 14.1″ have the same resolution and parameters, I vote for 13.3″ in case it doesn’t reduce battery lifespan. Otherwise, I prefer 14.1″ if it adds me some extra battery life.
February 16th, 2010 6:40 pm
I just bought two X301’s, the 1440×900 on 13.3″ resolution works great for me so i would normally choose that over the 14.1″.
Having said that..
I am truly, truly shocked and appalled by the abominable quality of the screens on the X301’s, so i’m going to return them to the store first thing tomorrow. So as long as Lenovo keeps using cheapass panels like this i couldn’t care less about the size or resolution, because talking about form factor is pointless without display quality backing it.
April 29th, 2010 1:01 pm
For a long time, I preferred 14.1. My current Dell D620 is 14.1 with WXGA+ (1440×900) and it’s great. So as many have said, it’s more about the resolution. I don’t like the current trend of consumer laptops with HD res of 1366×768. Why kill so much vertical space! We don’t all watch movies on our laptops. We surf, we use Word and other programs that benefits from having a big vertical area. So the ideal size would be 13.3, WXGA+ (or similar, as long as not consumer HD res) and slim dvd drive.