New Thinkpads are out with Sandy Bridge - T/W/L series

One way-too-high resolution for my eyes (at least until Microsoft actually does scalable fonts the way OS X does), and one less than I would want. Meh.

Has the T520 done the same?

 

Sucks that Lenovo didn't stick with 16:10. Business professionals don't need additional horizontal pixels. We don't plan on watching movies.

 

Agreed.

My T400 is the perfect resolution. My only gripe is that brightness and contrast cannot go high enough; unfortunately when I bought mine, the LED-backlit screen could only be purchased in Canada, not in the US. If I could upgrade the LCD to something better without having to experiment (that is, if I could find the correct array of parts on the first try), I might be happy for some time.

I do wonder if the next-gen Dell Latitude will keep 16:10. The E6410 still has it. As for HP, it appears their Elitebooks have already moved to 16:9 when I looked.

 

How does OSX implement scalable fonts differently than Windows?

 

It's really not much higher DPI-wise - it's about 120 DPI versus about 130 DPI (the latter of which is approximately equal to 1680x1050 on a 15.4" laptop such as the T500). I don't really see why the intensity of 16:9 display complaints extend to 14" laptops with 1600x900 resolution - there's only a net gain of precious pixels.

The T510 is already 16:9, so there's no/minimal chassis change to the T520. The display options are 1366x768 , 1600x900, and 1920x1080.

From my experience using both Windows 7 and OSX (and I've used the latter quite extensively, since some flow cytometry analysis software only runs on Mac), I still prefer how Windows 7 renders fonts. Maybe because I'm used to it, but I just feel that Windows 7's text is crisper than OSX's, no matter how I change the settings.

 

I wanted to explain my answer adequately, so I went searching for articles to better communicate my thoughts. That's when I found out that my thoughts regarding this issue are probably a bit dated.

Originally, scaling display fonts in Windows had the potential to cause a number of application-compatibility issues. A number of applications (this may still be true with some legacy apps) relied on fairly specific display font sizes --switching Windows to Large Fonts, or customizing the font size by percentage could cause quirky issues. In comparison, OS X's font system was designed from the ground up to avoid this problem. You could scale a display font size large or small, quite granularly without issues with your applications.

I think at least a portion of this issue has gone away with the transition to Vista and Windows 7. Until I can find the original articles I had that explain this better than I can, I'm going to retract. By the way, this isn't an intent to start a "Mac vs. Windows" debate: I've used both operating systems, and for the most part, I prefer Windows.

As for font rendering at roughly the same size, it is down to personal preference. While this article is a little dated, it puts things into perspective.
http://damieng.com/blog/2007/06/13/font-rendering-philosophies-of-windows-and-mac-os-x

 

Unfortunately it's confirmed the E6420 is going from 14.1" to 14" and 16:9. The E6510 was already 16:9, kinda like what Lenovo did. Seems like nothing is safe from 16:9 anymore..

 

I think I'm getting cranky about this display thing. Part of it is the business laptop vendors forcing a home user convention on us. Part of it is that the last laptop to have close to what I'm looking for is probably the 15" 1440x900 display of the Macbook Pro, which is expensive, has chiclet keys, and lacks a trackpoint.

I'm becoming a curmudgeon.

 

Unfortunately 15.4" died when 16:9 became standard. Everything is 15.6" now.

Ideal resolutions IMO:

12.1" => 1280x800
14.1" => 1440x900
15.4" => 1680x1050
17" => 1920x1200

Unfortunately everyone has went widescreen so:

Sub 14" => 1368x768 is livable but meh.
14" => 1600x900
15.6" => 1920x1080
17.3" => 1920x1080

 

My eyes went nuts with a 20" desktop LCD that was 1680x1050, 3-4 years ago. Enough so to cause me to exchange it and pay more for Dell's 2407WFP, 24" 1920x1200 (and I'm never getting rid of it, seeing as 16:10 is disappearing there, too).

1600x900 at 14-15" is too much for me, even though I have good vision. However, 1280x800 just doesn't have enough screen resolution. Long-term choices: I can either buy an E6410 while they're still around and stick with one-generation old technology, I can grumble and go 1366x768 with the T420 or a Dell equivalent when it arrives, or I can stick with my T400 and complain that all the upgrade paths stink.

Or I can go high-res and scale all the fonts reeaally large.

 

The sata ports in all these new models are sata 3 right? Just wonder as I will be getting a new SSD soon and then a sata 3 model makes more sense than buying an old model if I decide to get a sandy bridge model soon

 

Even if they aren't most SSD don't saturate SATA 2 speeds yet. Only the Crucial C300 SSDs go above 300 read, they are rated at like 355 mb/sec

 

For the record:

1680x1050 at 20" is 99dpi.
1920x1200 at 24" is 94dpi.

5% difference in density made such a difference for you?

Seriously, I think some of you need to get a little bit more flexible.

 

Let's acknowledge however, that the change from 14 inch 1440x900 to 14 inch 1600x900 is a loss in vertical space. Because the HD screen is wider, for the same diagonal length, the HD screen must be wider and shorter than the 16:10 screen. So those 900 vertical pixels are closer together on the HD+ screen than the 16:10 screen. The result is that you have to increase the DPI scaling more to get to a comfortable font size.

But honestly this all doesn't make a difference to me. I am skeptical that changes in vertical spacing really impacts your productivity. "But i'm a business user," and "but I'm a programmer," people say. But really? Do these users really lose so much productivity just from losing a few pixels? After all, these same users seem to have a few minutes of time to complain about these changes (people seem especially vocal on the lenovo blogs).

A wider screen lets you put documents side by side, which should be just as useful for these "serious" business power users. Word even lets you have two pages of one a single document side by side if you zoom out, a feature that should be more useful with a 16:9 screen. If 16:9 does bring screens with good contrast, color, and brightness, then I see no need to complain.

 

OCZ Vertex 3 Preview: Faster and Cheaper than the Vertex 3 Pro - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

 

Seriously, it did. I'm sure it wouldn't matter for a lot of people, but it made a big difference to me. If it hadn't, I could have used Dell's 21-day satisfaction guarantee (which is what allowed me to exchange the 20" display).

As for being flexible --I've been in IT for over fifteen years now. Some things I'm willing to be flexible on. Other things, I'm highly resistant to, and I know it. That's why my desktop at home has an IBM Model-M keyboard circa the early 90's. I have my reasons, and I'm fine with them; but why should I have to be more flexible for you?

If I want display resolution, I want it for a reason. Going from 768 to 900 lines is a pretty big deal to me in the scheme of things. 1366x768 is actually taking away, not giving, and when one looks at new technology, why would you take things away from those who are buying from you?

The answer, in this case is because it's cheaper, not because it benefits the user. Every vendor can now use less expensive LCD panels, possibly even ones from their consumer-line laptops. Honestly, that's sad --business people are willing to pay more to get more, and the number one thing being fudged in the business laptop world is LCD quality, both resolution, and in a number of cases, color uniformity, brightness, and contrast. Very few laptops have an LCD screen that's a significant improvement over what we've seen from Pentium-M notebook days.

I have no problem being inflexible in this case.

 

Let me correct myself, the C300 are the only SSD currently for sale that go above SATA 2 speeds. Plus I was under the impression the stuff at CES launched by OCZ were enterprise drives and they would cost an arm and leg.

 

That's what I thought initially as well. It's nice to see that the consumer version is significantly cheaper (and will probably reach V2 price levels when V2 is discontinued) with a nice little bonus in write speeds as well.

 

If you can get a look at the 14inch 1600x900 in person it might actually be acceptable for you. The pixel density is about 30% higher than your 24 inch monitor, but in typical usage you are probably more than 30% closer to your notebook display than you would be sitting back from an large LCD monitor.

 

I don't know of a vendor that would locally carry ThinkPads I could see, but I'd be more than willing to actually view it with the fonts set to large to see what I'd get out of it.

The other option would be to go to 15" 1600x900. I kind of like having the 14" version for portability when I need it, but I don't need the light weight some do, as I also have good desktops at most places I do work.

I do hope they have improved on brightness and contrast with the new screens. I have to keep my T400 on top brightness a lot. The current Dell Latitude E6410 is an improvement.

 

I've owned the E6410 and I have used the T400. The Dell is only a bit brighter. Plus both are LED backlit.

14" vs 15.6" shaves off alot of weight, 14" is the best balance of power and portability without paying an arm and a leg.

 

can anyone link me to the full spec list for the T420 and T520?

thanks

 

Here is the PDF with all the details and possible inside choices http://shop.lenovo.com/ISS_Static/ww/wci/us/ww/pdf/t420_t520_datasheet.pdf

 

thanks a lot.

 

I'm so psyched for that. I want to see what HP has to offer GPU-wise when the 8560w is announced as well. I'll buy the W520 if the 8560w doesn't support GPU switching, regardless of GPU options.

 

Just cuz you don't get it doesn't mean it won't impact others. I use external monitors primarily, and 1920x1080 just doesn't do it for me like 1920x1200.

I like a wide screen display for horizontal screen space while web browsing, and I like 16:10 height for the extra lines...1080 height is, after all, a 10% haircut off of 1200 height.

To some, it really does matter, on small screens and large.

 

As I stated before, not sure where he got the info from. From what I've seen the Quadro 2000M is far inferior to the GTX 460M. They have the same shader count yes, but a 128-bit GDDR3 interface is a huge bottleneck compared to the 192-bit GDDR5 of the latter.

 

I'm curious --Does anyone here have a T410/T510/W510 with a processor that has the AES-NI instruction set, and use Bitlocker as well?

I'd be interested to know the improvement in performance there, if someone has had experience with it. If I were looking at a T420/520, I'd probably look at a processor that supported this.

 

is it possible to change the i7 processor on my t510 to the newer sandy bridge

 

X220 tomorrow!

 

I am very interested in to see the screen on all the models. I am hoping that the non-tablet models get a screen quality that is equal to the well rated tablet screen of the previous X models.

 

Are we going to get the announcement at midnight like we did for the T420s?

Staying up late to study for a prelim so I'll be sure not to miss it!

 

Funny how Lenovo rolls out new stuff just as the 3rd generation of Latitudes come out...it's a conspiracy!

 

What timezone was that in? I don't want to sleep til they're announced, but I'm already going on about 4 hours from last night. I wonder if we'll see a 12" Elitebook soon, too.

 

Sure, in your case of 1920x1200 to 1920x1080, you are clearly losing out. But consider 1200x800 versus 1366x768 or 1440x900 versus 1600x900. The loss of vertical space is indeed regrettable, but at the same time, you gain horizontal space, which, as I said, has its own positives.

The people who care about these changes are only a small, vocal minority on the internet. Most users would not even notice or care about the difference. What I am saying is that a screen is a screen; how productive you are is not determined by your aspect ratio but by your own person.

I recommend sticking your taskbar on the right. A taskbar on the right can handle more windows open at once than a bottom screen taskbar, and you gain some vertical space.

 

For the T series it was up midnight EST on Engadget, but it's already past that now so doesn't look like it's happening this round.

 

Come on Lenovo, we're waiting!

 

Dell delayed the 3rd generation E series Latitudes and the newest Precisions...

Business notebook manufacturers, step up your game!

 

Could it have to do with Intel's Sandy Bridge chipset issues? If so, I wouldn't blame the notebook manufacturers.

 

So... no Lenovo announcement on the x220? =/

 

I think HP has sandy bridge up but ship date is March 23rd. I am guessing lenovo will wait till march end for intel to give green signal but hey who knows....

 

It will be weird if Lenovo wont announce X220 during CeBIT.
Is there some Lenovo event ahead where X series could be announce after CeBIT?