Why are people upset by the X220's resolution?

Too bad the x301 is over-engineer to the point that Lenovo didn't sell as much as they wanted. It would have been an epic machine with an IPS screen, modern processor (relative to computer year), and a ok discrete graphic.

 

@k2001...I would even settle for a x301 with integrated graphics. But on another note, isn't the weight of the x301 more than the x201/220?

 

While my X200t is great, it's probably a little too small for me. The X301 with a decent, it doesn't need to be great, screen would be perfect. If I were in the market right now I'd seriously consider a 13" Air. I'm not a huge OS X devotee, but I could work with it. The form factor is just about the perfect blend of size, performance and real estate.

 

Isn't there always the option of connecting to an external monitor if you need more screen real estate? Chances are if you need that much more resolution, you're probably going to be in one place for a while, hence an external.

But as was said before, it's an ULTRAPORTABLE.

 

Isn't it possible to run Windows 7 on the 13" Air?

 

An external monitor isn't very portable or conducive to plopping on the couch.

You can run Windows on a Mac, but driver support from Apple isn't very good.

 

If you dig the 13" X301 so much at 3.35 pounds, is the 14" T420s at 3.68 pounds that far removed? That is the weight mentioned in the tabook for each with the 6 cell battery. Not sure if it's correct.

I personally can't wait to see and test the T420s with the 1600x900 screen. I hope the battery life is 5-6 hours (at least).

 

???
Who gives a crap about MBPs?

 

@lines of flight, maybe you should have got the X220 instead.

 

No thanks. I like the x201 and if I had to wait for the x220 to arrive in India, I would be waiting for a while. Just curious: Why would you suggest the x220? I am not a fan of the screen res. I prefer the 1280x800 screen on the x201.

 

I believe the T420s listed at 3.68 pounds is without the optical drive. It's just under four pounds with it. The LCD in the tabook is listed at 300:1 contrast, which it means it won't be near as good as my X200t. If they offered an IPS in the T420 or T420s I may very well consider getting one. Like I said I got rid of my R60 because it was too heavy, but it didn't want to step down from the FlexView I had in there, which is why I went to the X series. I don't see half a pound or even a pound making a huge difference. I just don't want a 6.5 pound notebook any more.

 

Sign of the times. You get less for what you pay for as time goes by. The only screen sub 15in to get near 1050 vertical is the sony z and that's a 13in 1080p screen option.

There are ways to make pixel density not an issue, but there are zero ways to make a painful resolution useful. Mobility wise that is.

Where will I store these external lcds when on the go being as I'm mobile about 90% of my computing? Going to be a huge pain to use at starbucks and the couch.

 

The Sony Z is a rather unattractive machine - for me, that is!

OTOH, the 13" screen is perfect! Lenovo...you listening?

 

True. For the application-rather-than-browser-and-all-that-web-related-stuff-oriented users, these new screens are simply underwhelming resolution-wise.

and

These Toshiba portable displays would have been worth consideration if they had had higher resolutions: Toshiba Mobile Monitors | US.Toshiba.com

 

This is very interesting! Do these work with non-Toshiba machines?

 

I believe so, but they might lag on video/games.

I hope they release a usb 3.0 version, which hopefully help reduce the lag.

 

DisplayPort seems like a better option, or Light Peak in the nearish future.

 

There is nothing wrong with those resolutions - WXGA and 720p, respectively, they work well for many.

They're just inferior to the options we've had for ten years - SXGA, SXGA+, and WXGA+, on the X6x, and X200s series.

Some of us would consider buying other brands that offer better resolution options, even put up with their marginal quality, but none offer decent keyboards. Sony has a 13" 1080p, for instance, but the keyboard is horrible, and doesn't have a trackpoint.

 

I used to use a usb driven LCD. Too low res for anything more then ventrillo or pidgin. Ill just have to stick with my 1440x900 x200s and t400 until either my needs change or they start offering decent resolutions for those of us that do more then watch movies on the go.

These should work on pretty much any laptop. The USB lcds I have used do not play video or games.

Agreed. As time goes by we get less and less for our money. I dont like sony (minus the viao p) but I have thought about the z for its resolution but like you the chicklet keyboard and flimsy computers they make scared me away from any serious thoughts.

I just wish people would stop defending a standard that takes from everyone and doesnt give back anything.

 

Personally I think the Sony Z is a rather sturdy machine when I saw one at the shops, it certainly doesn't look hideous either. The only thing that puts me off is the massive price tag for the VAIO brand, their cheapest model is £2000 (~$3250 USD). That is a lot of money and for that you can get the top of the range spec X-Series with plenty of change to spare.

 

Well thats good to hear about the construction. Every sony I see in stores is flimsy and I cant do flimsy. Granted my mom had a nice ultra portable p-m system a long time ago that was nice, but now I have yet to see one built well but I have been proven wrong before.

If build quality is good and the screen is good, the only thing holding it back is the terrible chicklet keyboard. I can guarantee I havent found one of those that I could stand, let alone pay money for. But hey maybe sony will come to their senses and go back.

Edit: The sony z starts at $2000 here, so yeah a nicely equipped x could be had for the same or less

 

HD+ resolution would be nice given that X220 screen became bigger by 0.4" as compared to X200/X201 and vertical resolution is always nice. Thats why people complain.
Not that its not usable, its just that people have to adapt to it.

 

1366x768 is VERY painful for me to use, and when I start getting deep into RDPs and VNC sessions its about as useless as a poopy flavored lollipop.

 

I've just imagined using RDP/VNC or VM at 800x600 because even 1024x768 won't fit vertically...

Bring 4:3 back or I will destroy this world, mwahah!

 

You have to adapt to 32 vertical pixels less?

 

1024x768 is barely usable, and with a 1366x768 screen you have to scroll. Making it pretty hard to work even a low resolution. Now trying to work a decent resolution dont even try.

or 132 for people like me.

 

Physically painful seems a bit of a stretch. I can't argue with what you've said, but I think it's really a cost issue. While you and a few others prefer this, you're such a small group of people, it's not really in Lenovo's interests to pursue you. Most of the people who buy X series ThinkPads don't really care about this. That's the bottom line. You saw what the X201s costs? Few are willing to spend that kind of money on a notebook even if you are. If you really want that kind of resolution on a 12", I'd suggest getting a X201s and hanging onto it. Maybe a few years down the road you'll have some more options.

 

I have an x200s with wxga+

Maybe I should have said mentally painful. It slows me down at work alot and causes alot of heartburn. When I had my m11x I thought I was getting used to the resolution, but realized the issues with RDPs and VNC sessions was too much to deal with and why I gave it to my mom. But I can understand that Im part of the minority and while I plan to enjoy my x200s for another 2+ years I really do hope something comes along for me. Either a 1080p t4XX or a 1600x900 x2XX. Either would work for me.

 

While I wish you luck, but it doesn't seem real likely. You might have more luck in the 13" segment. The only 12" high resolution screens I can think of are a few tablets and the X20xs machines. None of those were big sellers and companies put their money into stuff that moves. A lot of 15" consumer notebooks you can't get anything but WXGA.

I sort of look at like that's the trade off you make for getting a smaller notebook. My R60 was a great notebook with the 15" IPS and in some ways I wish I would have kept it, but I was happy to move onto an X series because it's imminently more portable. Sure, going from UXGA to WXGA was an adjustment, but I really find that the ease of scrolling on the stick mitigates the loss of resolution because it's so easy to scroll around the screen, at least for me.

 

Yeah, I have only recently learned about a Sony VAIO Z13 with a FullHD @ 13.1'': http://forum.notebookreview.com/sony/515649-sony-vaio-z13-pre-launch-discussion-3.html#post6715953

 

1920x1080 on a 13" screen is crazy.

 

Agree, it should be 1200 vertically!
BTW, those guys from the Sony forum are upset because... Z13 has no option for a Quad-SSD in some countries.
Any questions?

 

You guys are funny. I love this forum.

Anyway, I find the 1920x1200 resolution on a 17" (like Precision M6500 or EliteBook 8740w) "just right." But it's me...

 

I think nearly everyone on this forum agrees 16:10 is superior to 16:9 for business computers.

You're right, that res on a 17" laptop is nice.

1680x1050 on a 15.4" laptop LCD is my idea of perfect. Apple sells it. At least until the next MBP refresh which I am guessing is another year off.

 

Thats why I hope to have my x200s for a while as it has that perfect mix of ultra portability mixed with a very usable (not ideal) resolution. For me the x200s (and t400) were a compromise of resolution for size/weight.

I used to love the 15-17in series, but with the loss in resolution I find the 17in excessive and a waste (opinion) and 15in models didnt offer the battery life I need (might have changed now). When 16:10 17in or bust as wuxga was hard to obtain in 15in laptops for my budget. Now with CPU needs being plateau'd for a while I find that I dont need the power a 15in or larger provides. A 1080p 14in with ULV quad core would be spot on mix, or a 1600x900 12.5in with a LV cpu. Sure Im in a weird minority, but lenovo/IBM have offered the laptops before and they always seem to be gobbled up pretty fast. Sure they will never sell like the mainstream as most laymen dont know the difference. But every wxga+ x20Xs I have seen doesnt last long when for sale and usually get held onto for a long period of time.

My idea would to offer it but at a limited capacity for a premium that users like myself would pay for a screen option like that. But again I know its not probable. Im not a brand fanboy, although Im a thinkpad addict, but I do restrict myself to business note books now due to making some mistakes over the years with consumer based notebooks and I am now looking only for 11-14in notebooks (may change). The only way Ill go above 14in is if they bring computers like the xps 2010 or the hp dragon back (desk only of course).

Or awesome. Depends on how you look at it.

You read my mind

I really wish business class would keep the 16:10 standard for 17in at least. Apple is doing so and I applaud them for it. So why dont lenovo/dell/hp follow suit and offer the ratio for a premium on certain or all business class notebooks?

 

The primary reason why Lenovo does not offer that option is because they think buyer are cheap, especially for corporate buyers.

 

Let's wait for OLED revolution in laptops...

PS
Looks like you've sized your reply to a 900 pixel full-screen preview

 

LoL Thats pretty funny and only readable on my wonderful wxga+ or 1600x900. Sorry 1366x768 users but you MUST scroll!

 

Well, most of my users at work can't handle anything smaller that 1024x768 on our 17" monitors, so I see where they're coming from. I would be happy if they had a limited edition at the beginning of the model year, making it clear that availability will not last long, and that it won't have any sales.

I don't think one is superior to the other, I just take offense to them forcing new ratios on us as an excuse to reduce our workable screen space. We're at the mercy of the LCD manufacturer's margins, and they've colluded to limit the effects of supply and demand.

I would much rather have 1600x900 than 1440x900, just like I would have preferred 1920x1200 to 1600x1200. It just never works out like that. When you get to those resolutions today, you're tiling windows more than working in full screen, so aspect ratio for a given application doesn't really matter, because you just make that window the optimal aspect ratio within the desktop.

 

My point was really about the resolutions offered within those ratios. We are saying the same thing.

I figured we've beat this horse enough that others would infer my meaning.

We'll all get used to 16:9 ratio resolutions, then they'll flip back. Then we'll have something to be cranky about again. Change suxs.

 

Yeah, I guess I got caught thinking back to the move from 4:3. Then, people were complaining that the aspect ratio itself was more suited to business documents. I guess when you're dealing with low resolutions that's true.

 

16:9 isnt terrible if high enough resolutions are offered. 1600x900, while the new 1680x1050, is better then 1440x900 that was offered in older models. 16:9 did one thing and thats offer higher resolutions in smaller screens. with 16:10 wuxga was offered in 15.4 and larger. Now there are 1080p screens in 13in laptops and even the idea of 1600x900 in 12in laptops.

The idea of a 1680x1050 screen in a 12in laptop a few years ago would have been laughable, but its 16:9 counterpart might be. Heck the fact that that same counterpart is offered in a 14in is an improvement. Do I want 16:10 to come back? Heck yeah! But since it never will at least 16:9 offers us the improvement of higher resolution segments in smaller packages.

 

I don't know so much that they were gobbled up, but more of a parts shortage. That's really what doomed the X20xs notebooks. I'd bet the numbers as compared to the X200 or X201 were very small. Unfortunately, the way for notebook makers to drive the costs of parts down is to make a huge commitment and when the market isn't there, they can't do it.

I hear you about not being able to buy what you want. My preferred notebook is a 14" SXGA+ notebook with a good screen. It doesn't need to be IPS or anything, just decent. It's to me the perfect blend of portability, real estate, performance and size, but no one ever made one with a decent screen. I think the viewing angles on my 14" R60 were about 1°, but other than that, I loved it. Right now the only way to get something with a decent screen is 12" or under or 15" or larger. Since I prefer not to have a six pound notebook, I'll stick with my tablet. If anyone ever made a 14" SXGA+ notebook with a decent screen, they'd have a customer in me.

 

I too would think the cheapest version or unaltered/standard confiwould be the best selling due to price and faster build times. But options/variety is the spice of life and offering a certain upgrade, even in limited quantity and at an obscene premium, wouldn't break the bank. Making it standard issue? No. But a pricey limited option? Sure.

 

The problem with an expensive upgrade I think is so few opt for it, it's not worth the effort. There's going to be a huge difference in price between buying 1,000 and 100,000 screens.

 

I'm saying if the screen upgrade is 100 or 150 some will buy it and lenovo isn't left out to dry. I guess we could theorize all night, but in reality it could go either way.

 

$100-150 isn't obscene enough. You saw the price difference between the X200/X201 and the X200s/X201s? That was more like $500. A bit of it was other stuff, but most was probably the screen difference.

 

Maybe, possibly more than half, but I don't know about most. You also had a ULV CPU, a newer and supposedly more advanced roll cage in the lid which was probably more expensive to produce and needed R&D recouped, and the exclusivity tax for the extra thin and light design.

I'd pay $250 for a 1600x900 screen, $350 if it's IPS or AFFS ($300 for VA). I know there aren't a ton of people who would, but I can't believe it's not enough to make one limited edition run of them per generation, and see where it goes from there.

 

I'm sure you would, but as I think I've said before the primary buyers of ThinkPads are large organizations that buy in big lots. They're most interested in unit cost, durability and compatibility for the most part. Being here, where users are enthusiasts and are much likely to spend more or chose upgrades, really makes it seem like the number of people who'd opt for this much larger than it is in actuality. I wish it weren't true, but from my own observations, that's the way it is.

 

I'm pretty sure there are more users that need a high res than superb viewing angles and colors.
Why don't they just offer good TN-Panels with a higher res, instead of a low res IPS panel?