Some ThinkPad T420/T520 information

I am waiting for concrete news and announcements about upcoming ThinkPad models (T, W, X series), and there are all kinds of partial information around the internet. Today I found out the following and thought others might be interested.

Some websites started showing a news item about the T420/T520 coming in February (for example here). A little digging turned out a PDF that is available from Lenovo website that has a page about these new models. Not really much information, but now you see that the T420 will probably have HD (1360x768?) and HD+ (1600x900) but no FHD.

There is no mention of either W520, T420s or X220 - maybe they will come even later?

The original PDF is here:
TopSeller Winter Campaign? (you have to scroll down a bit to find the page).

There is also a possible announcement/release date mentioned towards the end:

Here is a screenshot of the page in case you do not want the PDF or it becomes unavailable.
(click for image)

 

There's no way the T420 was going to get WUXGA. The pixel density is just too high.

 

I assume that T520 and W520 should look exactly the way current T/W 510 look? The same for T420 except for 16:9 changes?

 

16:9 - it's going to be bad for new thinkpads, worst possible aspect ratio ever!

 

16:9 is getting worse for document editing and coding. You could use two documents side by side ...

I recently started using Visual Studio by having two vertical tab groups side by side, essentially having two source code files open at the same time. The same is available in Word, when it displays two pages. And you can arrange windows of different applications side by side as well (in Windows 7 its very easy by pressing Win+Left and Win+Right). HOWEVER this only works when the screen resolution is high enough. On 1280 or 1360 horizontal resolution it does not leave too much width for a single window.

Many have said it before, that 16:9 does not make much sense when speaking about business notebooks. Too bad LCD manufacturers have a final say in the matter.

 

Don't the Envy 14 radiance display have almost the same specs? HP says it has 250 nits, but messuared is like 240-260. And they are both 14" and 1600*900

Could it be the same panels?

 

I think the Evny 14 screen is 14.5 inches, not 14.0. So I am leaning towards them being different panels.

 

Nice!

I wonder what discreet gpu option(s) will be available in the new Tx20 series

 

Others have said this in previous posts (I think in this subforum as well as the hardware section) regarding the change from 16:10 to 16:9 resolution. It's not so bad if the 14"s get 1600x900 resolution because that's actually an increase in horizontal pixels from 1440x900 so it's not so bad.

 

It will be a tragedy however if X220 doesnt get the same option in form of 1600x900 resolution, because some might avoid X220 due to limited vertical pixel count, me including
And I dont think that many people will go for probably considerably more expensive X220s, if such gets released, for its 1600x900 resolution.

 

Huh, so the T520 needs more than 90 watts for its power adapter? That graphic says that the T420 can use the 90 watt slim adapter but the T520 can't. Weird, are all the T520s going to be quad core?

 

That's not going to happen in my opinion. At over 150, the pixel density is too high for must users. That means low volumes, which drives up prices. I'd suggest getting a X200s or X201s if that's what you really want.

 

If Lenovo can improve their lcd quality the t420 may sway me from buying a vaio z/sa

 

What about physical dimensions? Wouldn't they shrink the physical vertical size of the display? So even though you have the same number of pixels, they get stuffed into less space?

Something similar happened when displays transitioned from 4:3 to 16:10. A 4:3 15" panel is physically higher than a 16:10 15" panel. So while the vertical pixel resolution might have stayed (say at 1050), the physical resolution changed. The 16:10" 15" panel is the same height as the 4:3 14" panel.

 

Well, not sure if I couldnt live with "HD" 1366x768 resolution, but I do think that WXGA is much better.
Im coming from 1280x1024 desktop LCD monitor so when I looked for laptop I knew I would like something as close as possible and WXGA+ with its 1440x900 was closest to it, more than, maximum resolution available at least on ThinkPad's between 12" and 14" is WXGA+.
I MIGHT get used to HD, but that doesnt mean I will find it productive for what I do or intend to do on my laptop making my work less productive and inspirational and more of a sour experience and understanding-depression that I cant go to bigger resolution on 12" than actual joy from doing something I like on my laptop.

1280x800 is minimal resolution that Im ready to live with, MINIMAL.
HD is just terrible to use if you dont have external monitors hooked to your lappie.

Given that X220 is going to have 0.4 inches bigger screen than current X20Xx, Id say 1600x900 shouldnt make difference to users, i mean, its 160 pixels increase in horizontaly together with 0.4 inches increase in physical screen size, should it?

At least I hope so, because while X200s is rather cheap now, its bit underpowered and might get outdated for what I do and intend to do with laptop, CPU is limiting factor for me.

X201s should have enough of power, at least for a start, but its way too expensive and there arent that many of them around with WXGA+ screens.

14" with WXGA+/HD+ is great size and density wise, but at the same time I find regular 14" laptops (Edge/T/R/SL/L series) bit too heavy and too bulky both due to chassis thickness and protruding batteries when opting for 6/9 cell extended batteries depending on model.
While T4x0s are lighter and considerably slimmer without protruding batteries, they have limited battery life numbers and still retain the same size as regular T series except for thickness.

For now it seems that loaded X201 might be the way to go for me, unless X220 offers HD+ resolution for reasonable price when prices fall, and Im talking here about regular X series and not slim ones.
Unless, again, slim series pack built in webcam, HD+ screen and cpu power that match that of, lets say, T9900 or Core i3 first generation core CPU, then I might start to salivate about slim series X laptop

 

I don't see 32 pixels making that much of a difference. I might like 1366x768 as it would allow me run the Vista Sidebar and the FF bookmarks sidebar at the same time. 1280 is just too narrow.

 

As I mentioned in my previous post - its not 32 pixels, its 1280x1024 to 1440x900 to maybe 1366x768 for me.
And that makes loads of pixels if you ask me
Hence why I said that 1280x800 would be minimum for me.
Im not talking about sub 11" laptops here. Only 12"-14".