What is up with Lenovo?

I find 1600 pixels barely enough as it is, always wanting more horizontal space in many apps displaying various toolbars to the left and right of the processed document. And it's pretty much all 'content creation' applications I use, from Visual Studio/multi-tabbed Remote Desktop to Photoshop/CaptureOne.

It does. I have several backpacks (not bought specially), just normal ones, from NorthFace to LowePro, that fit 14" 16:10 and 15.6" 16:9 laptop fit fine. Anything 1.5" wider would not fit.

And if you travel somewhere you need to get work done, 15" workstation-grade laptop is what you're going to take. And possibly more than one too. 15" 16:9 works fine with Trackpoint in economy on cross-atlantic flights, anything 1.5" higher would be considerably more difficult.

I know people who do drag 'foldable' 23" monitors with them in luggage. For the sake of physical screen size and position, not resolution - spending days looking into a tiny screen isn't good.

But anyway, all I'm trying to say, that the only perfect aspect ratio is round. The rest, any single one from 16:9 to 5:4, has many pros and cons, and it heavily depends on the person and the applications used. But when 1080p is really not enough, next stop is 1600p+, not 1200p. Rotating another laptop + Maxivista software may be a better fix for the problem (worked well for me in the past).

 

On default, most programs have toolbars that eat up vertical space.

Like I said before: it's not gonna be deeper. In the space of a W520 with 9 cell battery you can easily fit a 15" 4:3 if you move the hinges back so the 9-cell sits flush.

Work what would have been done before you got in the plane if you had a usuable screen in the first place.

So since when is there no weight / size limit on economy class luggage...

That's completely bs; I could equally claim that "if 1600 is really not enough, next stop is 2560, not 1920"

Actually, I'm typing this on a x1600 screen; a nice 30" with the taskbar on a side screen (rotated 1600x1200).

 

And most program I use also have toolbars that eat up a lot more horizontal space than vertical.

Mm, OK, it will fit the same backpack then

1920x1080 is often more usable than 1600x1200. 1920x1200 would be ideal, but alas - nobody produces this in 15" anymore (and yet).

W520 + W530 + power bricks + some other stuff in a backpack happily fit into weight/size limit of economy class. And yes, it's perfectly usable on the table, even if the person in the previous seat does not sit straight. But it barely fits, +1.5" height would have made a difference.

1920/1600 > 1200/1080. And more pixels too.

But yeah, if it's really not enough, next step is 2560. Unfortunately, this resolution at 15" is too small to be useful at 100%, so 1920x1xxx is the only reasonable choice left.

 

Just to quickly chime in on the 1200x1600 vs 1200x1920 or 1080x1920 debate. Besides the fact that the 4:3 aspect ratio is better for everything except watching videos, if you were to compare the quality of a new Hydis HV150 UX2-100 LED screen to most of the newer screens you'd understand why there is no comparison. Even the older HV150 UX1-100 CCFL screen although not as bright is still so much nicer to look at then any of the widescreen models.

The pixel quality and viewing angles are what really matters, not the number of pixels, and if they made a similar IPS screen in widescreen format, I'd buy one.

ps. Yes, I do know about the new 15.5" IPS screens in the new W series and I hope they are everything we are hoping for, but the Hydis LED screens were far more affordable and you don't have to buy a top of the line workstation to get one.