Lenovo takes top marks in display comparison.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/laptop-display-comparison-awards-top-marks-to-lenovo/1#c16799425

"It's not exactly the most extensive round-up, but photographers looking for suggestions on a laptop to pair up with their DSLR would do well to check out Rob Galgraith's latest comparison, which takes a look at the late-2008 MacBook Pro, the Dell Mini 9, and a pair of Lenovos (the W700 and T60). Not so surprisingly, he didn't have too much positive to say about the MacBook's switch to a glossy-only display, but other than that, he found that it mostly held up against its predecessor. It apparently wasn't able to match up against the two Lenovo offerings, however, which came in at number one and two in both color accuracy and viewing angle tests. The W700, in particular, proved to have color accuracy "on par with a fine desktop display," a feat enabled in no small part by its built-in calibrator. He was also especially impressed by the Dell Mini 9, which actually beat out the MacBook in terms of color accuracy, but fell a bit short in viewing angle tests. The fact that it also fits nicely in a DSLR bag certainly doesn't hurt things either. Hit up the link below for the complete breakdown."

www.thegadgetsite.com

 

I wish I could say the same about the sucky SXGA+ panel my T61 has

 

Most panels suck with the exception these beauties. This just confirms it. It always amazes me that no one steps up to serve this market. The W700 is nice notebook, but not everyone wants to spend $3K on a notebook. There's got to be a ton of graphics professionals, people who do 3D modeling, etc. who'd love a quality panel in all sizes, even if there's a significant premium for it. Or even people like myself who'd pay a couple hundred more for a quality screen. They can do it. The technology is there.

 

ZaZ, I second that. I expressed the exactly same opinion in the Lenovo forums a few weeks ago in the thread "Wishing for better Screens".

I gave an example there with Porsche: When Porsche had financial problems in the 70ies they decided to produce fewer cars that were unequal to competition (at higher prizes). That's what essentially makes the brand today.

Lenovo could do both, serve the mass market with standard screens and the demanding users with quality screens and sturdy notebooks at reasonable prizes. But it seems it doesn't matter how many people express their willingness to pay a couple hundreds more for the quality they want, they just don't seem to be interested in milking the cash-cow.

Just my 2 cents.

 

There's got to be some logic behind it however flawed. Even MBPs don't offer a better screen, which you think they would starting at $2k. When I bought my R60, the T60 with the IPS screen was a $250 upgrade on the T60. If they had given me the option of it I would have bought it.

 

w700 is built for pro, not us....

 

The big problem is there are only a handful of companies actually making the panels and it's a very low-margin business.

Most laptop panels will be CMO, Samsung and LG.Display.

 

it's funny how thinkpads used to be $3600+ for IPS models not long ago (~5 years) and now it's considered outrageous to charge this much for equivalent equipment.   heck, my first thinkpad was $5600 back in 1995.   i may be in the minority here but i find the W700 relatively inexpensive in comparison.

perhaps the problem here is that consumers expect computers to drop in price and the scale to be linear.   if a netbook can be sold for $350 then certainly a high-end computer should only cost $2000 at the most.   i wish things worked that way but life's not quite that easy.   high-end features cost money to develop and produce, just like any other high-end/luxury item.

perhaps lenovo should get out of making so-called "affordable" computers and stick to the high-end like the early IBM days.   it would certainly manage people's expectations a bit better.   sadly, it could also put them out of business.

it's an interesting paradox.

 

erik, lenovo is actually making affordable computers besides thinkpads with their other models like the r series and ideapads. in my eyes the current thinkpads are on a somewhat uncertain path: they mix high-end development development and high-end features with partly low-end production and parts (keyboard, chassis flex, average screens).

like i tried to say before, a company can charge a premium and shape it's brand if it can offer a product that is unequal to competition (like porsche or apple do very clever). thinkpads offer great heat and noise management and good battery life. but lenovo mixes that with half-baked screens and flexy parts.

the thinkpad could be an unequal product for which people would pay a premium or a few hundreds more - if it wasn't currently somewhat half-baked. bad business decision, methinks. since they could serve both the masses and the demanding users.

 

You should check out the reviews on YouTube of current ThinkPads. Aside from the early production runs of the T400 (most issues having been since corrected), they are still rock-solid machines.

I'm sure some corners have been cut, but don't believe it is nearly as many as the typical notebook manufacturer out there. They are still the creme of the crop for business use and durability.

 

I'd have to agree. Which world do you prefer? One where ThinkPads cost $3k, but offer fabulous build quality with stellar service and support. Or you can have the rush to the bottom we seem to have now. I still think ThinkPads are better than most other notebooks for not much more, but not the cut above they once were. I believe Lenovo thinks there's more money in the latter. Taking the Dell approach over the Apple way. If you choose the former, a lot people wouldn't be here.

 

I would happily buy a 3K thinkpad if they give me support as good as Apple.

 

I think that the price is beside the point in this case. If a computer is geared towards professionals they're probably more willing to spend money in good equipment than a consumer.
The issue with the w700 for most people is probably it's size and weight. Very few people want to carry such a thing, particularly when added to packs with cameras, lenses, tripods and so on.
On the other hand the W700 is probably some sort of "concept car" to test the market. Maybe in the future we could see the color calibrator, a compact flash reader or a way to have some raid configuration with a hard drive in the ultrabay in a W500. All that plus a good screen would be a great computer for a photographer, considering that they're already quite sturdy.
... can you imagine? :drool

 

Couldn't have said it better.

 

I'd settle for being able to order machines with your choice of screen manufacturer. The randomness of screens and keyboard manufacturers sucks. You make a decision on a machine you have tried out somewhere and then when your machine arrives it's different.

 

I would have though that the X200T screen would have made the list but for some reason it didn't..

 

I'm not sure why it didn't either. Best guess is that it's pretty new, and I think only 1 of the 3 (LED Active digitizer only) looks superbly good (the others aren't as bright).

 

if you read the article, it actually says that the old MBP screen is better because of the anti-glare. glossy screen has over-saturated colour, and thus making the colour (more) untrue.

i'm not surprised at all that the W700 takes top mark, after all, what other laptop goes as far as having built-in screen calibrator?

what im surprised is that the DELL mini beats the MBP, i mean... couldnt get more shameful than that aye apple?

 

Now that I agree