Why I returned my T420 after 1 week

You might wanna take a look at the Lenovo X200s and X201s, both offer 1440x900 at 12" and with the X220 starting to take off, prices are dropping.

 

The problem with the x200s and x201s is that the screen quality are not that great either.

 

True, but in my case, I would spend +/- $1500 for a X220 (low resolution, good screen) or T420 (good resolution but bad screen)..

Or, get a second hand X200s/X201s for around $800 in which case I can live with lower screen quality.

 

This question has been discussed multiple times by Matt Kohut of Lenovo at Inside the Box (which, by the way, is a great blog that I wished got updated more often). In short, afhstingray is right. This is not a Lenovo thing, but concerns the entire industry. The panel OEMs have let the computer OEMs know they're not interested in making other aspect ratios than 16:9 - unless, of course, the computer OEMs pay up. They, in turn, have surveyed their respective markets and found that consumers either don't care or actually think 16:9 is better, whereas business users prefer taller screens but are not willing to pay the premium.

The bulk of us here (as well as the commenters at insidethebox) belong to the minority that actually wouldn't mind paying extra for a 16:10 or even 4:3 screen. Unfortunately, there's not enough of us.

 

the LED screen on the E6410 and E6400 was good, and the 2CCFL screen on the E6500/6510 was really awesome, i have that screen on my precision.

the smaller 12 and 13 inch latitudes are a almost the same as the lenovo screens imo,

 

Matt Kohut's (referenced in my previous post) comment to that can be found here: Inside the Box » ThinkPad T420s:

"Apple didn’t redesign the Macbook Pros this year and used the same mechanicals as last year. I’ll bet 2012 sees the same 16:9 as everyone else."

In the same comment thread, he states the following regarding both Lenovo and other OEMs:

"We’ve made our move to 16:9. HP’s latest have done the same. I haven’t seen Dell yet, but I suspect they’ll move too. To keep 4:3 or even 16:10 would easily drive a $75 – $100 cost premium and despite the vocal cries here on this blog, THERE JUST AREN’T ENOUGH OF YOU WILLING TO PAY THE PREMIUM. We have to make money, and our target corporate customers won’t pay."

Now, I'm not claiming this is gospel truth, but at least it's from the horse's mouth.

 

It's true, maybe it's different for you guys but I know I'm the only one among my friends who would even CONSIDER paying extra for a 4:3 screen (or 16:10). Most I know people just don't care or even notice really.

 

This is nonsense. It's perfectly understandable that in the $500 consumer laptop space, people aren't willing to pay a $100 premium for a better screen. However, we're talking about top of the line business workstations. These customers are clearly willing to pay (and are already paying) a premium for better everything. If it's simply a matter of price, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple never moves to 16:9 because they have already proven that their customers are willing to pay just about anything.

 

Who are "these customers" you are referring to?

If I need to purchase 50 new laptops for my IT team or my consulting team, I'm not going to pay $100 more for a better screen so that they can have a better experience watching movies, playing video games, or other non-job essential tasks.

MBPs and Thinkpads are not even competing for the same target market. That will be the day when I meet with a sales rep from one of our distributors and he pulls out a $2000 MBP provided by his company...... and can't even get his MBP to work with our projector....

What I don't understand about all this fuss with the thinkpad screen is some people's insistence in changing what a thinkpad laptop was designed to do. Obviously if it doesn't meet your needs, then there are plenty of other laptops out there that do meet your needs. Why try to make the thinkpad into a mbp when you could just go buy a mbp? Why complain you can't watch movies or play video games on a business computer? Just go buy a multimedia laptop and be done with it.

 

That's odd... I've read that the E6410 has the very same panel as the T410. Anandtech has reviewed both systems, and objective measurements show very similar performance for both (at the bottom of the pack for almost all crieteria).

 

Dan,
Clearly you're not following the conversation. Read the post I was responding to. The discussion is about the cost savings in moving from 16:10 to 16:9. "These customers" are the people shopping for Thinkpads, Elitebooks, Precisions, etc.. These customers have already shown they will pay more for quality (or they would be shopping for inspirons, vostros, etc.). Claiming that the reason for switching to 16:9 is because people just won't pay the $100 premium on their $3000 Elitebook is absurd.
No one ever claimed the Thinkpad and MBP are competing for the same market. Apple was mentioned to show that people shopping in the high end of the market WILL pay more for what they want. The irony is, the MBP is the only laptop left with a business-friendly 16:10 display, while all of the "business" laptops have moved to the movie-friendly 16:9 ("just like your TV!").
I'd be curious to see if we're actually seeing any of that price difference. Is this year's T420 $100 cheaper than the T410 was last year?

 

Oh man. Relooking at OP, it looks like I might end up keeping the T420 when it arrives and selling my Envy 14 (damn chiclet keyboard). The key selling points were the build construction and the keyboard, the latter which I seriously need. I can't maintain a 100+ wpm with the chiclet.

 

[Hi-lighted sentences but retained rest of post for context]

My questions exactly. A bit more pixel density doesn't cost THAT much more retain, does it?


I understand that the 14.1", 15.6", and 17.3" are more/less an industry standard. I'm not aware whether the PC manufacturers came to a consensus on choosing these 3 primary sizes to reduce cost, or whether the display manufacturers shoved it upon them. BUT. I'd be interested to see how much costs would come down if all PC makers were to agree to adopt 1600x1080 displays or 1920x1080 displays. I'm sure it would bring down cost for the entire notebook industry!

 

Nope, I think I am following the conversation. It sounds to me you are making an assumption about who "these customers" are and whether they are willing to pay the extra premium for a better screen on a business laptop. And I disagree and so does Lenovo based on this quote posted by jazdc "THERE JUST AREN’T ENOUGH OF YOU WILLING TO PAY THE PREMIUM. We have to make money, and our target corporate customers won’t pay."

The point I was trying to make on my previous post is that Lenovo's thinkpad customers are not the individual customers buying one laptop but the corporate customers buying multiple machines. And I find it hard to believe that these corporate customers are putting a priority on screen viewing angle and the graininess when watching their favorite movie over the company's bottom line.

 

Another thing that you have to consider is, the better the screen the more likely that their employee will use it as am entertainment device rather than a work machine. Another benefit of buying a Lenovo machine [/sarcasm]

 

LOL. That was actually pretty funny. It takes a sec to sink in.

 

No offense jazdc, but I don't believe this. Users aren't presented with choices so there really is not choice. If you think this boils down to the dollar, you are wrong.

In hard economic times, people are buying iPad 2. The money is out there.

Marketing is failing and Lenovo is letting the LCD makers push them around.

 

Surely you realize that you're comparing two entirely different target markets for two entirely different products... right?

I'm baffled how so many people can find this difficult to understand:

1) Lenovo has stated several times that better screens are possible, but would incur increased cost.

2) In the past, the figures that have been given were that Lenovo would need a minimum of 15,000 confirmed pre-orders to *consider* providing a high-end screen option. Somehow, us forum users have failed to amass said orders. Shocking!

3) Lenovo's primary target market is large corporate customers. They [Lenovo] have stated multiple times that the corporate customers are not interested in high-end screens when they come with a price premium.

4) Despite the above, Lenovo's has managed to consistently improve its profits.

Now which is more likely: that Lenovo is ignorant of their customers wishes, incapable of researching screen options, and has somehow lucked in to record profits...*or* people on various forums are a vocal, picky minority of a secondary market for Lenovo's products and are perhaps less-than-authoritative when it comes to Lenovo's sales and development strategies?

 

soooo glad to read this! My T420 is due in a couple days but already canceled/have rma so I get 100% return.

 

I'm sure Lenovo has plenty of research to support business and technical decisions. I would love to see their usability studies on screens.

 

We had similar lines of discussion in the Envy 14 thread. Yes, many of us here on NBR love our premium displays. But there just aren't enough of us to warrant HP making a mass purchase of high-end displays for notebooks that aren't part of the elitebook line.

Apple is just a different case. They've targeted their notebooks toward both professionals and young 'uns alike. Photographers want a high-gamut display with an excellent multitouch touchpad that can help them flip documents with ease and zero hiccups. Very few Windows notebooks offer a combination of both. The young 'uns are into the sleek, thin, and light form factor MBPs offer, and the nice-looking display just comes with the package and isn't what they're initially targeting.


Bottom line: There aren't 15,000 people pre-ordering notebooks. But you definitely have more than 15,000 people pre-ordering Macs each year. I'd argue Apple wouldn't save much $ by offering lower-end and higher-end displays. They just simplify their product line by offering a one-size-fits-most solution which with few exceptions just works out!

 

This has nothing to do with usability, and everything to do with sales. (Note that the below isn't aimed directly at you, as much as it is a comment to everyone who has talked about what Lenovo should be doing vs. what they are doing in the past several pages)

Point 1 - Example: BigCorpCo wants to purchase 100 laptops for their sales force. Lenovo (or insert other major business laptop vendor) gives them two options in one category. One has a bit better display, but costs $100 more each, with no other differences between the two. Which laptop is BigCorpCo's Accounting Department going to approve, knowing that there is a $10,000 price difference on the order?

Point 2 - Given Point 1, and the market research that I'm sure has been done, note that Dell, and HP are doing the exact, same thing. You're talking the three laptop vendors (add Lenovo) that make up the global majority of business laptops when you add them together, so you're looking at the sum of their marketing research. That isn't including everyone else who is doing the same thing.

Lt. Kaffee (Tom Cruise): You and Dawson, you both live in the same dreamworld. It doesn't matter what I believe. It only matters what I can prove! --"A Few Good Men"

Think of that quote --and then look at it this way. It doesn't matter what you and I believe or even know to be better for our personal use. It only matters what Lenovo can sell in significant quantities to make a profit. Lenovo doesn't make its big bucks off one-off sales; it makes it off selling fleets to corporations, schools, hospitals, universities. We're small change compared to them.

Whether we all like it or not, Dan H is right, and those who have hinted that he's "not getting it" are incorrect, aside from his perspective on the gaming and movie bits (I think they're a sidetrack to the true point here).

P.S. If all of us want to get mad at anyone, we should be venting at the LCD companies. I don't see people just boycotting 16:9 laptops en masse and regardless of brand, though --life will go on, and the LCD companies get the final say on what Dell, Lenovo, and HP get to sell us.

 

double-post, sorry.

Btw, zeth, I'm betting that Apple will be forced to go 16:9 as well for their next Macbook/Macbook Pro refresh. They've probably got a contract for the current run, but after that, we'll see.

 

Yes and no. That kind of customer does exist. I'm one of them, and if I ask around among the people I tend to hang out with, I can find quite a number of others. The problem is, we're not representative for the bulk of the market. Individual enthusiasts - like us - don't mind adding a couple of $100 to a laptop. As has already been stressed by dan h, however, a business buying 50, or 100, or 3,000 such laptops is somewhat more price-conscious. Adding, say, $150 to $1,500 isn't all that much, but adding $150,000 to $1,500,000 is quite a bit more.

I wouldn't quite agree with that, though. I want a Thinkpad mainly for the superior build quality and the world-class keyboard (and perhaps also the no-nonsense aesthetics . I can definitely see how someone could want both that and a high-end GPU and kick- display.

EDIT: I suddenly realized I had missed about a page of new posts when writing the above, and that my point had essentially already been made. Sorry 'bout that.

 

Yea, I guess the option I am looking for is a T420w with the 14" equivalent of the FHD screen on the W520. But apparently I am a minority.

Maybe the X1 will solve the slim, light, ThinkPad travel dilemma.

 

You may or may not be in the minority of enthusiast owners. However, enthusiast owners are a minority compared to the corporate world Lenovo does business with.

Two weeks ago when I ordered my T420, I'd gladly have shelled out another $100, maybe even a little more, for a 1440x900 IPS screen if it was available. I bet a lot of enthusiasts would too. However, I bet Merill Lynch, or Kraft Foods, or (insert big company here) would not.

 

Correct, they would not. I know this from the time I bought my R400. A large IT company had ordered the R400 - about 50 of them. I believe they only picked up 49 of them leaving me to pick up the lone remaining one at the low price that the company had paid Lenovo.

When I asked why the R400 and most of the T400 machines came with the 1280x800 and not the 1440x900 screen res, I was told that the demand is for the former because the slight variation in costs add up when someone is buying 200 or so machines every quarter.

I also found out that once the 3 yr warranty is over, the machines - at least in this company - are scrapped - that is sold at scrap value - I don't know how they work out the depreciation etc., but whatever, you know!

Apparently, the same system works with regard to peripherials etc. So, I guess it would make sense for a volume buyer to work with the lower common features-set.

As an aside: Only recently, I got to know about one such company that buys this "scrap". I am going to visit their warehouse shortly to see what kind of stuff they hoard and what exactly happens to this stuff.

 

One person's "scrap" is another's treasure. Some of the sellers on "a large auction site" are companies that buy such fleet notebooks for cheap. If you're lucky, you can get one that was sitting mostly on a desk, little used, or even a "back up" unit sitting in a closet, never used.

 

PM me on what you find.

I work in educational IT. With budgets as tight as they are in the US, if I could find an inexpensive source for even R61/T61 and newer laptops, I'd definitely consider it.

 

@LoneWolf15...yes I will...will visit them sometime next week (not and) because this week I am traveling.

 

Apologies to the OP for continuing the thread-jacking. We should have taken the topic up in a new thread.
Those arguing that business customers placing a large order are concerned about the supposed $100 price premium (this number is absurd and surely wrong) on a 16:10 screen are ignoring the fact that all of the very expensive, top of the line systems (that likely are not being sold in bulk) are also now 16:9. Not to mention, all of the high-end consumer laptops (that are sold to individuals) are also 16:9 (with the exception of Apple). I'm sure the truth is much closer to what Thor's Hammer is saying. The LCD panel makers, who have been caught colluding in the past, are pushing this on PC makers. I'd be curious to know if any of this cost savings is actually making it to the consumer.
Screen quality is a separate argument from aspect ratio, but the two are being conflated. But, in both cases consumers aren't given a choice. If you need a new laptop and nobody offers a good quality, 16:10 screen (even for $100 more), then you buy one with a low quality, 16:9 screen.
Sadly, the PC makers have completely ceded the high-end to Apple.

 

The point was that the LCD panel vendor collusion is resulting in the price premium we've been talking about. Panel makers are telling laptop vendors "Sure, you can have 16:10 --if only you pay xx more". Laptop vendors know that their best-selling markets aren't going to pay the extra cost if they pass on the markup, so they're dropping to 16:9. So it's actually a chain reaction, and I think that's what everyone was telling Thor.

 

In my opinion the ultimate business laptop would be a ThinkPad T43 remake which features Sandy Bridge, IPS, fingerprintreader, USB3.0, webcam, SSD option, Bleutooth and mSata. Maybe take the weight down a little and improve battery life to +8 hours and no company would say no..

There is no valid reason to force the 16:9 format on professional users. I agree that most companies will not pay extra for a premium screen, I do believe however most would be willing to pay extra for a 16:10 or even 4:3 format.

Pretty soon all laptops will be 16:9 which gives Apple the perfect opportunity to be 'the first' to come with a 4:3 laptop in four years! Five million dedicated Apple fans will get one and start laughing at us Lenovo 16:9 laptop users.. Lenovo will eventually catch up after 2 years and their new T710s will finally be 4:3 again..

 

Trust me, I get it.

 

I know you do --was just pointing it out to hge.

We can only hope this swings in another direction when the T430 or T440 are eventually released --though I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.

 

Apparently not, if the OEMs' market research is to be trusted.

We can only hope...

I actually have a lot more of that hope when it comes to premium screens than I do regarding aspect ratio, as the latter actually requires different mechanics (a different screen bezel, at the very least).

 

Perhaps the manufacturers' long term business plan is to first get us to buy machines with 16:9 display and then reintroduce 16:10 so they can get more sales as we move back to more user-friendly screens.

John

 

just got a t420 yesterday... i-2410 with 4GB RAM. in rest-state (nothing running, except for explorer) RAM Usage is at a minimum of 1.8 GB... I mean, ? is this normal? how am expected to work wit this machine with 2 gigs left for other tasks?

 

On what basis do you compare it to a 2008 machine? But of course; anyone with a similar but different model compared to your own personal choice is a bonehead. After owning ThinkPads for many years, despite the viewing angles of the screen etc., I think the T420 is the best I've owned yet. And I prefer it to the W520 by far, considering the power draw, size and weight differences (don't forget that big brick in the calculation of weight). Each to their own.

 

Windows 7, by default, may use a lot of RAM for caching files and things. It's normal, and doesn't mean your RAM is in short supply. In the meantime, why don't you spend about $20 and upgrade to 8 gigs of RAM?

 

Fallacy. Do you actually know what the OEM's market research showed? We hear complaints here all the time from ThinkPad users who would be thrilled to pay extra for a 16:10 screen. Like all the other "arguments" for 16:9 screens being the best option, yours doesn't hold much water.

ETA: I see now your previous post on Matt Kohut. I need more than one blog to believe, I guess. I simply find it impossible that Lenovo would not improve their offerings by offering the 16:10 panels in laptop lids and form factors that can already accommodate them. How much does it cost to engineer a new bezel?

The panel-cutting argument doesn't wash either, IMHO. They were cutting them just fine until recently, so the machinery is obviously either in existence or adaptable/resettable.

 

This only means, that Windows is finally up to speed regarding RAM usage, and applies the same caching strategies which made Linux so much faster than any former Windows version on the same hardware.

One of the most famous FAQ in the Linux world used to be, why Linux would consume all RAM right from the start, not leaving anything. The answer usually consisted in the explanation, that it would be foolish to leave unused RAM idle, and thus Linux uses it for data caching, preventing expensive read accesses to the hard disk, which would only slow down the system. That made Linux so fast in first place, and finally Windows has catched up.

So just rejoice and enjoy the speed!

 

Lenovo can use 16:10 panel, but it is not as cheap as using the 16:9 panels.

Some people get into the habit of penny pinching (and mocking others whom are not doing the same), and not willing to pay the recommended retail prices. As such in order to satisfy these customers base, they have to find ways of reducing parts cost, screen format is an obvious and easiest way of achieving saving.

 

Matt Kohut? Is he still with Lenovo? He got so frustrated about the screen issue it seems he stopped blogging.

 

Hasn't Matt Kohut became a consultant for Lenovo now?

 

kohut now works in the services division.   he never left.

 

Not hard numbers, no.

But I do know what Lenovo's primary market is, and it ain't us. Yes, you see complaints here on forums all the time. Got it. Yet, as far as market share is concerned, neither you nor I matter. Lenovo's main market is large corporate purchases -- the sorts that involve hundreds of units (or more) at a time. When you're talking that volume, the savings from a cheaper LCD matter. They matter a lot. And since Lenovo wants to appeal to their target market (businesses that care about every dollar spent), they'll go with the cheaper LCD form-factor.

I'd love to think that my words carry weight with a major laptop vendor, but the reality is that we're but a small portion of their customer base -- and since we're not a particularly profitable one our complaints don't really matter all that much.

To put it another way: if Lenovo's government and other major contracts came with the stipulation that only 16:10 panels be used, you'd see 16:9 disappear in a heartbeat.

 

If buying 1 or 10 then the users can rule. If buying 100 or 1000 then the bean counters rule. And it may be that the bean counters prefer 16:9 because it can show more columns on their spreadsheets.

John

 

Bean counters prefer the lowest, which 16:9 provides. Perhaps now that sales of LCD TVs are slowing, perhaps LCD makers will more amenable to giving their customers what they want, which means 4:3 or 16:10.

 

I'd pay an additional $50 to get a 16:10 rather than 16:9 if I was in the market for a laptop > $800.
I'm sure many of us would as well.