Miscellaneous Operating Systems/Hardware

This one cropped up a month or two ago, but I've only just discovered it.

Essentially, Lenovo are considering making a new ThinkPad laptop, but with lots of more "retro" features implemented into it. So, either a 16:10 or 3:2 screen, classic 7-row keyboard (with blue Enter key), loads of status LEDs, physical buttons on the trackpad, all that sort of thing. Sounds pretty good to me!

If you're interested, there's 4 surveys on the Lenovo blog asking all the questions there and you can effectively tell them what you would be interested (or not interested in) should they make such a laptop. And of course, the more people that fill in the survey, the more chance of Lenovo deciding it's commercially viable to make a new "classic" ThinkPad.

The blog with the article for this and the 4 surveys is here , if you're interested in reading further into it.

Personally, I'd love the opportunity to get a new laptop without a shit 16:9 screen and with a proper keyboard and trackpad!

If they release it with a 3:2, 4:3 (preferred), or 5:4 screen resolution I'd probably buy one.

Given all the crap Lenovo's pulled of late, I'd love one ... from some other company under license.

The hardware is still presumably alright, just don't go with their software.

ClassicHasClass wrote: Given all the crap Lenovo's pulled of late, I'd love one ... from some other company under license.

Yeah, there's that...on the other hand, I'd kill for a 4:3 laptop in this era of inevitable widescreen crap.

4:3 is highly unlikely from what I read, simply because nobody makes panels that size any more. 16:10 or 3:2 seem to be the realistic possibilities. Personally, I'd be happy with either of those aspect ratios. I don't mind widescreen monitors, I just think that 16:9 is pushing it to extreme levels.

I've had chance to play with a 3:2 Surface Pro 3 at work and it's amazing how much more breathing space you have with the screen. It blows the pants off other 16:9 portables. If only it wasn't glossy...

Edit: Completely agree about Lenovo's dodgy malware tactics lately. The only thing that helps here is that in both cases, the ThinkPad has been immune to Lenovo's software stupidity so far...

commodorejohn wrote:

ClassicHasClass wrote: Given all the crap Lenovo's pulled of late, I'd love one ... from some other company under license.

Yeah, there's that...on the other hand, I'd kill for a 4:3 laptop in this era of inevitable widescreen crap.

Me too, I miss the standard resolution LCD I used to have.

commodorejohn wrote:

ClassicHasClass wrote: Given all the crap Lenovo's pulled of late, I'd love one ... from some other company under license.

Yeah, there's that...on the other hand, I'd kill for a 4:3 laptop in this era of inevitable widescreen crap.

Why? It's a windows machine, it plays my xbox when I'm in bed and watch movies on. What else are you doing in windows that you would need a bigger screen for? Would be nice to get e.g. 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 at least, in a 12" screen. But the 16x9 works well for movies and games.

I traded my 2010 macbook air for a thinkpad x220 and while the nostalgia trip is nice, I know I'm going to be plunking down for a new macbook (either an air 11" like my old one, or the retina macbook) within the next month or two. A far worse offender than the aspect ratio is the horrible color and contrast. And DPI. And the craptastic battery life. And non-magnetic charging coupler. Windows 7 sucks, 10 fixes the problems of 7 but introduces new ones, and while 8 is nice, I don't have a license for it (my wife's vaio has 8 and she loves it). It seems to hit the sweet spot of modern features but all of the bugs worked out. 10 will hopefully get more mature in time.

I really like xbox music microsoft groove, but ironically find it works better on my work laptop (macbook pro) than windows thinkpad at home! (this may be subjective). It has convinced me to actually *pay* for music for the first time in... forever.

I am still keeping my x220 if only to play my xbox in bed or when wifey is watching TV but I was a bit foolish to think it could replace a macbook. Still trying to get warmed up to it.

guardian452 wrote: Why? It's a windows machine, it plays my xbox when I'm in bed and watch movies on. What else are you doing in windows that you would need a bigger screen for?

It's not about the screen resolution , it's about the aspect ratio . 16:9 makes sense for a movie theater because the whole point is to fill the entire field of view, but on a computer it sucks. Maximizing a document on a widescreen laptop means that reading it requires way too much left-to-right-to-left travel for my eyes (since most paragraphs are now two or three lines of ~120-200 characters,) or requires me to crank up the font size to the point where the information density is roughly on par with an Atari 2600 game (since there's so little vertical room.) And not maximizing it isn't a good option, either, since the only OS that does tiling all that well is *nix (and even that could be a lot better.) 4:3 just works better than other aspect ratios (5:4 is pretty alright too, but I doubt anybody's ever done that on a laptop.)

But naturally, since everybody is buying 16:9 TVs to win the dick-measuring contest against their neighbors, we have to make computers fit the same pattern, no matter what. And hey, computers are just glorified TVs for a whole bunch of people now, so who cares about anybody actually trying to do work on them!?

duck wrote: The hardware is still presumably alright, just don't go with their software.

Well, the firmware ain't so hot either:
http://arstechnica.com/information-tech ... -crapware/

commodorejohn wrote: (5:4 is pretty alright too, but I doubt anybody's ever done that on a laptop.)

There were several. The Thinkpad 770Z was one of the first, I think.

also: A wider screen just means there is more room for palettes.

commodorejohn wrote: And hey, computers are just glorified TVs for a whole bunch of people now, so who cares about anybody actually trying to do work on them!?

There ya go ! 42.

commodorejohn wrote:

guardian452 wrote: Why? It's a windows machine, it plays my xbox when I'm in bed and watch movies on. What else are you doing in windows that you would need a bigger screen for?

It's not about the screen resolution , it's about the aspect ratio . 16:9 makes sense for a movie theater because the whole point is to fill the entire field of view, but on a computer it sucks. Maximizing a document on a widescreen laptop means that reading it requires way too much left-to-right-to-left travel for my eyes (since most paragraphs are now two or three lines of ~120-200 characters,) or requires me to crank up the font size to the point where the information density is roughly on par with an Atari 2600 game (since there's so little vertical room.) And not maximizing it isn't a good option, either, since the only OS that does tiling all that well is *nix (and even that could be a lot better.) 4:3 just works better than other aspect ratios (5:4 is pretty alright too, but I doubt anybody's ever done that on a laptop.)

But naturally, since everybody is buying 16:9 TVs to win the dick-measuring contest against their neighbors, we have to make computers fit the same pattern, no matter what. And hey, computers are just glorified TVs for a whole bunch of people now, so who cares about anybody actually trying to do work on them!?

I would rather have one big screen than a bunch of little ones, and I like having as much horizontal space as possible. Even the craptastic 1366x768 12" TN panel on my x220 has the same vertical space as the old x40, but enough horizontal space to hold two pages next to each other. And it is far more ideal for movies and games. Your screen width cannot typically be made smaller than the width of the keyboard.

I have a 27" thunderbolt display (16x9) and the vertical space is just enough; otherwise I couldn't see over it! But horizontally, there can always be more. That 34" curved dell is the sexiest screen I have ever seen. 21x9. but at $1200 it is more than twice the thunderbolt display. And there is no ALS, the speakers are guaranteed to suck, no camera, no charging cord, etc. Although I will admit the current TBD is long in the tooth, there is not anything I would want to change on it. I guess bend it and make it wider

guardian452 wrote: I would rather have one big screen than a bunch of little ones, and I like having as much horizontal space as possible. Even the craptastic 1366x768 12" TN panel on my x220 has the same vertical space as the old x40, but enough horizontal space to hold two pages next to each other. And it is far more ideal for movies and games. Your screen width cannot typically be made smaller than the width of the keyboard.

My problem with horizontal space is when it comes at the expense of vertical space. For example, a 16:10 screen fits very nicely into most laptop chassis and matches the overall shape of a modern laptop quite well. 16:9 however doesn't . Seriously, look at most 16:9 laptops and you'll see the bezel around the screen is much fatter at the top and the bottom than it is at the sides. The aspect ratio is actually a poor fit for the shape of a modern laptop, but manufacturers still shoehorn them in because they're cheap (and yes, this is the sole reason why they all use 16:9 - because it's cheap).

My X201 has a 16:10 screen, and it's a FAR better fit for the shape of the laptop (bezel is pretty uniform around all sides). a 3:2 screen would also fit the chassis far more naturally and efficiently than a 16:9 screen.

Basically, all current laptops either have ugly fat bezels at the top and bottom, or the companies have to start using drop hinges or other tricks to try and hide the fact that the screen is just too short in height for a modern laptop chassis.

Also worth noting is that the move to 16:9 has generally arrived with a reduction in screen resolution. When laptops went from 4:3 to 16:10, a 1600x1200 screen became 1920x1200 (same vertical resolution, and extra space at the sides). However, over the last few years this has then been cut to 1920x1080. And it's crazy! At work, we're refreshing old Dell workstations with 1920x1200 screens with new ones that have a lower screen resolution, a fatter bezel, and less screen area than the old ones. And all because it's cheaper for Dell. I wouldn't mind on a budget laptop, but these are £2,000 professional mobile workstations. And it annoys me intensely seeing Dell sticking a deliberately worse screen onto a two grand laptop, just to save a few quid in construction costs.

Personally, I despise 16:9. It's a nasty and unpleasant aspect ratio designed for watching TV on, not for doing proper work. If Lenovo finally decide to buck the current trend and design a new laptop for proper work, rather than just watching Netflix on then I think that would be fantastic. Currently, if you want a new laptop with a screen designed for proper work, the only company making them still is Apple (the Macbook Pro is 16:10, as is the new Macbook).

Personally, I despise 16:9. It's a nasty and unpleasant aspect ratio designed for watching TV on, not for doing proper work. If Lenovo finally decide to buck the current trend and design a new laptop for proper work, rather than just watching Netflix on then I think that would be fantastic. Currently, if you want a new laptop with a screen designed for proper work, the only company making them still is Apple (the Macbook Pro is 16:10, as is the new Macbook).

Right, but we are talking thinkpad here, which means windows, which means games (at least to me). Most games are made for 16x9. I love the streaming feature in the new xbox app and that alone makes up for all of the thinkpad's other shortcomings.

Maybe this is very jobsian of me but why don't they make a perfect square laptop, 12" to a side, with a 1:1 aspect ratio (or close as possible allowing for the hinge), each half 5mm thick, and call it the NeXTpad. And of course, make it black

I know they make them bigger/smaller but I've always bought laptops that are about the footprint of a sheet of paper or magazine. x31,x40,x220, 11" mac air, 13" rMBP, etc. My wife has a 14" pink vaio and it is the biggest laptop I've ever owned, there is even room for a CD drive in there! (not that we have any CDs to put in it, of course).

guardian452 wrote: ... we are talking thinkpad here, which means windows, which means games ...

Ouch ! InDesign, Catia, Illustrator, Photoshop, Framemaker, NASTRAN, lookout ! The end is nigh

Most games are made for 16x9.

You run full-screen ? You'd fit right in here. Why do they make such a big deal about "it's multi-tasking !" if people are going to run everything fullscreen ? May as well use DOS. i also think 16:9 sucks, especially with that dumb taskbar wasting an inch off the bottom.

hamei wrote:

guardian452 wrote: ... we are talking thinkpad here, which means windows, which means games ...

Ouch ! InDesign, Catia, Illustrator, Photoshop, Framemaker, NASTRAN, lookout ! The end is nigh

Big Ouch

hamei wrote:

Most games are made for 16x9.

You run full-screen ? You'd fit right in here. Why do they make such a big deal about "it's multi-tasking !" if people are going to run everything fullscreen ? May as well use DOS. i also think 16:9 sucks, especially with that dumb taskbar wasting an inch off the bottom.

I've been sticking the taskbar on the right side for years. My thinkpad however has such a shortage of pixels I have it set to auto-hide completely.

Smallish thought, but has anybody else noticed that the sign on the lid of newer thinkpads is upside-down? I always liked how it faced towards the user, even on my x220; whereas on a mac it is upside-down to the user when closed. When it's open what do I care what direction it's facing?

Macs used to face the user also, and then Steve-O somewhere around the G3 era realized it was bad marketing.

guardian452 wrote: I've been sticking the taskbar on the right side for years. My thinkpad however has such a shortage of pixels I have it set to auto-hide completely.

Maybe one of the reasons I like 4Dwm is the launchpad. Or toolchest. Or whatever they want to call it. First thing I did with Warp 4 was ditch that arfing taskbar thingy. (Second thing I did was go back to Warp 3)

Taskbar, ugh.

guardian452 wrote: When it's open what do I care what direction it's facing?

You don't want everyone to know how special you are ? Oh man, what a waste of a good Apple