Lenovo axes the 4:3 ThinkPad T61 -- are widescreens better?
By Nilay Patel 
posted Apr 21st 2008 10:32PM
posted Apr 21st 2008 10:32PM
Lenovo's the latest laptop vendor to go to a mostly-widescreen lineup today, as it retires the 4:3 14.1-inch ThinkPad T61. All that's left in the standard ratio are the 12.1-inch X-series laptops, and even those are something of a novelty in today's 13.3-inch dominated market. It's not a formal move and there's no announcement, but it's clearly a growing trend -- Apple, Sony, and HP don't offer any 4:3 laptops either -- and it's got us wondering what people prefer. Just amongst Engadget editors there's no clear agreement: some of us prize vertical real estate, while others say tiling windows horizontally provides maximum multitasking power, and one ed rocks both 16:9 and 4:3 displays side-by-side -- but that's probably crazy. What's your aspect ratio of choice? Hit us up in comments!
Main screen is 16x10 but in a dual monitor setup where teh second is 4x3.
I keep my main screen centered and the second is slightly wrapped around.
M
Why not 8:5? People still reduce fractions and ratios, right?
@deaner.
i think they do that just to point out out that its a teensy bit taller that standard 16:9. but lol its funny you should point that out i never thought of that.
@ Deaner:
Because 16:9 was a common widescreen format before 16:10 came around. Most computer LCDs are 16:10 and all widescreen TVs are 16:9.
Doesn't make any sense to reduce the fraction when lots of people wouldn't be able to figure out how to compare 16:9 and 8:5
i didn't know people still used 4:3 screens anymore. I would never go back
Same exact setup here.
I'm cool with widescreen as long as the screen is big enough. 15" widescreen just doesn't make sense. 17" is fine. On a 15" I much prefer 4:3 to be able to read the darn text!
i have a 16:10 laptop and at work i use two 4:3 monitors side by side. i much prefer the widescreen laptop screen. even with a dual monitor setup with 4:3 screens, everything feels cramped and cluttered. while dual 4:3 is useful, 16:10 are more practical and cheaper.
My first widescreen was the Lenovo T61p I am typing this on, bought in October. Whenever I get on the desktop with the standard monitor, it is such a major difference. Widescreen makes a total difference for me now.
I have two 4:3 monitors on my desk, and my laptop has the now requisite (it seems) 16:9 aspect ratio. I actually prefer the "old school" standard ratio for computers; the widescreen aspect makes viewing webpages, especially those with large pictures, somewhat of a pain. However it does look better when viewing a movie without 3 inch letterbox.
sorry, meant to say two 5:4 aspect ratio monitors for my desktop
4:3 is better for most computer tasks (especially vertically orientated web pages), and widescreen is better for movies.
Since I very rarely watch movies on my computer, I pick 4:3 every time.
"13.3-inch dominated market"
hmm... I always thought there weren't enough 13 inch laptops. Sony Vaio SZ, Apple MacBook, Dell XPS 1330 were the only laptops I considered getting. I felt 13.3 inches was perfect for me.
My vote goes for widescreen, just like movies. I figured, logically, eyes were meant to move left and right more often than up and down.
widescreen
eyes aren't made to moe vertically as much as horizontally. good point.
he means 13 inch laptops dominate the ultra light segment, not the whole laptop market...
If they offered something better than 1280x800 in 12" or 13.3" 16:10, this wouldn't be an issue for me, but right now, 12" 4:3 units are the only ones offering something higher than 1280x800 (1400x1050).
I have a MBP, and i like the widescreen, but i often miss the vertical space when browsing webages. I've got two widescreen monitors on my desktop PC, and i've been thinking about putting one vertical for web browsing and keeping the other horizontal.
The other place i miss the vertical space is for audio editing. Sometimes you want to see more tracks at once than a widescreen display can show, though it is nice to have the horizontal space.
GAH! Tradeoffs! When's somebody going to just release a big ass square display? That'd make me happy....
its not the ratio, its the number of pixels.
sinai's right. forget the ratio, i'm just looking for anything high-res. that's what makes the multi-tasking happen.
no joke, im rockin 1680x1050 on my 15" lappy
no joke, im rockin 1600x1200 on my 15" lappy. My broke-ass, 5 year old dell beats your laptop by 150,000 pixels.
I completely agree, I really don't care whether it is widescreen or not, its how many pixels I can get. I have a 19" 1600x1200 4:3 attached to my 15.4" 1680x1050 screen on my laptop.
Totally. This is why I've been advocating for 12000x200 displays for years now.
Right, but given the same number of pixels, I'd rather have them in 16:9 than 4:3.
I curently have a 19in 4:3 monitor and I'm seriously considering buying a nice 22in Samsung but then I won't be able to play Crysis on the native resolution.
Any thoughts or recomendations for a good 22in monitor?
19" is a good size. I have 2 19" 4:3 side-by-side. They're @ 1280x1024 and actually if you span a widescreen movie across both it isn't that bad you get used to the gap. Good for HD movies too.
If you have an ATI card (chances are you don't, but whatever) Catalyst 8.3 added a feature that scales the image on the GPU side instead of on the LCD, so you can effectively play at native resolution no matter what resolution you choose in a game. Worse than actually playing at native, but much better than LCD scaling. It's great for stuff like Crysis where there's no way I could run it at my full native resolution (1680x1050).
Also, on topic, I used to be a big 4:3 fan but I've since realized how much more natural widescreen is since your field of vision is actually much wider than tall. Also, widescreen monitors often have more pixels (1920x1200 vs 1600x1200 for example) although sometimes they skimp on pixels in laptops, which sucks. But for me it's really all about the pixels, and the price, and this monitor was too good to give up ($200 for 20"Viewsonic widescreen).
@Chris
I highly recommend the Samsung 204B. It's only 20", but you get a very sweet 1600x1200 native resolution and a nice low response time too (less motion blur).
@iofthestorm
The Nvidia drivers have the same feature. And since we're talking about Crysis, I think everyone who has the hardware to play has either Nvidia or ATI.
I'm cool with either format for desktops but I'd only do widescreen for my laptops. It seems to fit the concept of the laptop much better. A rectangular shape feels more comfortable to carry around in bags, and it fits better with the rectangular shaped keyboard.
All of my laptops are widescreen, but I do remember being very happy the day I ebay'd my last laptop with a 4:3 screen. Like you, I find the widescreen laptops easier to carry and most importantly - seems to allow for a wider, more full-size keyboard layout.
16:10 but try finding one that actually has decent resolution on a laptop these days. Seriously, I work with visual studio and the current generation of laptop monitors are just not cutting it... My 1440x1050 laptop blows away most of the current monitors. It is like they are going back in time with crappy lower res screens that are "better" because they are widescreen. Yeah.... Widescreen is good if you don't loose the resolution.
Gimme a Toshiba M700 with a *high* resolution screen and I will be happy.... unfortunately even Toshiba has gone lackuster on their displays... you have no choice anymore.
I hate my widescreen laptop a little for the same reason Pete hates it (low resolution), but for a different reason. I run virtualization software on it and 800 minus 768 equals only 32 pixels, which is a bad thing because, I mean, is 32 additional vertical pixels enough for running virtualization software in a window? That is a bad thing because 1024x768 is a common screen resolution and this makes it hard to run virtualization software in a window when the VM is at that resolution.
don't forget the garbage glossy screens they're popping in all the laptops now.
@Mark
I hated the glossy screens until my work-issued laptop had one, and now I'll never buy an LCD with the anti-glare filter again. It's an HP-Compaq 6710b if anyone cares.
Widescreen is the most aesthetically pleasing. This may sound like an opinion, but there's science to back it up:
The "Golden Ratio" has been around for ages. Artistically, it's always been highly prized. That ratio is 1.6180339887 which is very close to 16:10. As long as displays are rendered in pixels, this is probably about as close as you can get.
I also wish they'd quit making movies in wider and wider formats. Does it have to get as ridiculous as Seagal-Vision before they stop?
RIGHT ON!
I'm glad you know this! I was searching to see if anyone mentioned Phi but then you mentioned golden ratio the golden ratio. It works in a funny way. The more precise you go, the further from 2:1 till you get to some naturally pleasing proportion found in nature.
1:1.6
10:16.2
100:161.6
Someone also told me you can do simple math and get close to the golden ratio by adding the in this progression: (1:2)1+1=2, (2:3)1+2=3, (3:5)2+3=5, (5:8)3+5=8, (8:13)5+8=13, (13:21)8+13=21... etc...
I really disgust 4:3 or 5:4, and adore 16:10 or 16:9 ….. Widescreen is much better visually
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Ratio
I forgot to mention that I really hate low resolution monitors, I am using 17” 1920x1200 on my laptop and absolutely love it, sorry but 1280x800 not for me.
This is aimed at Ryan: Have you heard of the Fibonacci Sequence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_sequence It's sort of where all of this stuff got started. :P Though, I do admit that this is quite an interesting point. My personal favorite resolution is 1920x1200 pixels. Its vertical count is slightly above 1920x1080 (1080p HD), its horizontal count is slightly above 1600x1200 (a VERY nice 4:3 resolution), and the spec was originally created because it allows two full documents to be placed side by side. Plus, one could throw in the ability to rotate most of these wonderful 16:10 monitors. Overall, I find that 1920x1200 offers the most advantages. It's also the highest common resolution that a single DVI port can handle. :D I seriously wonder what the deal is with this slew of 1680x1050 monitors. It's only a little extra for that oh-so-wonderful 1920x1200 resolution.
I tend to prefer 4x3 just because alot of what I use computers for is dedicated to large bodies of short lines of text (code). Plus as desk space is more valuable to me then air space I tend to feel like I get more area out of my 4x3 screens. We should ditch both and start using vertical 4x5 screens like the alto had :P
Honestly I could really care less either way as long as the resolutions nice and high for the size.
I really like my new widescreen. It makes my reading and posting on Engadget, SpyroForum, Tweaktown, Benheck, Youtube, Dark Realm Dracos and others more comfortable. I found the standard useful for being cheap.
WIDESCREEN - FOR THE WIN!
How does widescreen make web browsing (or document reading for that matter) easier? Both of those are orientated vertically and would require more scrolling than an equivalent 4:3 monitor.
Scott, I know this is a bit late, but I read left to right, not up to down. :)
5:4 and 4:3 for web browsing, 1 window tasks. 16:9, 16:10 for moves, multi window tasks
I actually got a HP w2408 and it rotates so its like 1920x1200 (which is enormous) turns into 1200x1920 which is A HUGE AMOUNT of vertical space. Rotating it is a pain though.
For a laptop I prefer 4:3. For a desktop, I prefer 16:10.
Quite the opposite for me, actually, but that's because I've always had 4:3 desktops and widescreen laptops..
While from time to time I wish I had that extra vertical space, in the end I always liked widescreen better. It also works a lot better with full screen videos, and reading webpages is a lot easier (especially sites like this one that auto-form to the width of the screen).
~
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Mo-ratio,
Than are dreamt of in your pixosophy..."
Ramlet, Hact I, Screen 5
~
Sure, wide-screen is better!
1. All the web pages are spanning horizontally aren't they!?
2. Every document you type is on landscape-oriented paper, yeah?
3. Computers and laptops are the best devices for watching movies, right?
4. 15-inch wide-screen laptop has a lot of pretty useful space on both sides of keyboard - you can put pen and pencil there (or better fork and knife).
5. My vision is so wide that I can look at both ends of 22" ws at the same time.
The only thing WS is better - it's cheaper, so it's much more profitable.
I can sell 15" notebook for a hundred less than your ugly near-square 14", hohoho! (and my nice 10-megapixel tiny p&s is sure better that your ugly big 6mp SLR). Blondies rulez 4eva.
Clearly you don't use excel. (Hint: you can see more columns without scrolling on a widescreen.)
Funny, my Excel worksheets have many more rows than columns. Although the happiest I've ever been when using Excel was when I had a 24" CRT that could handle insane resolutions and refresh rates....
I have a widescreen laptop, and love it. But, I'm not bothered when I use a 4:3 display.
I agree. I think that wide screen is better because it's where the TV market has gone as well. I'm a real fan of standards- de facto or otherwise. It makes everyone's life easier when moving product from one viewing environment to another.
However, I used a 4-3 this past week & didn't really even notice the difference.
Widescreen makes much more sense to me in terms of productivity: two documents side by side is the killer feature.
Sure. On a 15" wide you can surely SEE two pages of code or two word documents or two pdfs side by side. Hu... but... hu... can you actually read them?
I like widescreen. Google gadgets sits over on the right side of my display and what I'm left with is a regular 4:3 look. The best of both worlds for me.
4:3 is better for tablets as you can turn the screen and it simulates paper.
Nice avatar there, Zed. Very classy and sophisticated. Must make you popular with the women.
Prefer the 4:3, but I can get used to a widescreen....
Just so long as they stop putting that silly shiny coating all over them! Matt non-reflective screens just made sense... why do I want to be looking at myself over the top of my desktop?
my fav reso is 32:18 I think about the real HD. LOL one can dream can't they.
LOL!!! Trying to confuse us by doubling 16:9, eh? Very clever, very clever... I wonder how may people you confused on that one.
I like wide screen better. I hope more data projector will provide native support of wide screen resolutions.
Dual 16:10 widescreens side by side @ 1680 x 1050 ftüw.
The best size is exactly the same width as the standard size keyboard with a tiny bezel (read 4 mm) around the keyboard and monitor. Current gen laptops have enormous bezels. Just look at the discontinued T61, with the styled assymetric bezel.
I have a 19 inch box and a 24 inch widescreen side by side and it makes me feel like widescreen is more of a 'mental' thing vs. being 'better'. I mean, a 24 inch 'box' monitor would in comparison blow the widescreen away right? It'd be huge since the inches would be identical top and side.
The real call I guess is more in tune to being HD and coming more and more towards screens being theater-like...if that makes any sense. Wide screen is sort of winning out box because all new technologies are convergies on these screen sizes in order to give the audience a more cinema-like experience in home (hopefully that makes the point I'm trying to convey). That's why flat screen TVs and such are now WS as well.
I don't see it as more real estate necessarily. As I mentioned before, if you get 2 24 inch monitors, 1 ws and 1 box then either way you're getting the same space, just in different areas. If you're watching lots of movies and dvds then the WS will come out the winner. If you're just into surfing and playing games then box may work out better. It's a matter of preference.
*converging
In addition to what I typed, I do prefer WS over box because I do everything with my PC and laptop - I use them for gaming, media and to read the news therefore the WS edges out on the more specific advantages of the box screen. People that are using their machines for productivity and work would PROBABLY be better off with the box.
i prefer widescreen because i can have my taskbar vertically oriented on either side of my screen and browse the web in a slightly less widescreen ratio.
I much prefer 16:9, no matter what I'm using. I have a 4:3, but only because I don't have money. If I had some, then I'd snatch up a good 23" ACD asap! I like the wide feel. It's easier on my eyes (eyes do better horizontally than vertically) and it's great for editing movies (which I do a lot of).
When the T60 went end of life, we had to pick out a new T61. I can tell you, there weren't many 4:3 T61's to start with.
It has been some what of a uphill battle with some users trying to convince them 16:9 isn't that bad and it really only adds about 1.5 inchs in width.
Widescreen is nice, but the bigger problem I see with widescreen is not the aspect ratio, but that the default resolutions are much suckier without being willing to pony up the bucks. 14/15 incher 4:3 screens would typically come with 1280x1024 or 1440x1050, but now they are 1280x800?!?! Unacceptable. Sure, if you got cash, you can be glorious on your 1920x1200 17 incher, but not me. I'd prefer to stick in the 14.1 with 1440x1050 myself.
Yes. Widescreens are better. It's not even a contest.
I have widescreen at home and 4:3 at work. I agree with the others that resolution is more important than the ratio. I used to design websites and resolution is an important factor if I want to design pages that would look good in any resolution. 4:3 is easier to work with since there's bigger vertical space to work with the design.
As for games, I would prefer 4:3 since most games only support this ratio and the game would look stretched if it's played on widescreen. But widescreen would work if there's a way to just show the 4:3 then leave the remaining screen area black. (Let me know how if this is already possible)
4:3 Laptops much preferred.
- When on a desk or lap (not docked), the top of the screen is closer to eye level, so less hunching (or same amount of hunching, just not so far)
- Primarily work in Word, Visio, Web pages
- Docked at office - Dell 19" 1280x1024
- Docked at home - THREE Dell 20" 1600x1200 = 4800x1200 !
16:10 is what I use, with my 16:9 TV as a secondary monitor.
4:3 @ 2048x1536
mmm... pretty
I'm totally rocking the dual 20 inch widescreens. It's probably the best move I could've made. Going to widescreen is definitely an optimal choice, even though you don't have that vertical space like you'd have with a 4:3 monitor. If all else fails, just get bigger monitors, then you'll have that vertical space, and extra horizontal space as well!
I don't use a laptop, but my 20" Benq at 1680x1050 I have hooked up to my desktop is gorgeous and easy to work with. Having a Word document side by side with an Excel spreadsheet while you're working on both is the best, as is seeing DVDs played with much smaller letterbox bars.
Widescreen all the way, would never go back to 4:3
All of my screens are now 16:10. First 16:10 screen was my Toshiba laptop about 3 years ago and since then I have now moved to the 17" MBP and my Vista Desktop now has a 16:10 LCD screen.
definately a fan of widescreen laptops. 4:3 is great and all, but i think that since laptops are used more for work than purely gaming/entertainment that they are better with a wide screen. more room to put windows side by side and all that. although with linux thats never a problem what with virtual desktops and taking up barely any memory (compared to windows applications)
Widescreen but like Ben said the resolutions are a problem unless you want to pay big bucks.
Only Grin (see above) has mentioned what I think is the real driving factor behind this: cost. It's just that. Widescreens are cheaper for LCD manufacturers to produce. PCs and Laptops became a low margin product a long time ago, manufacturers are trying to find ways to reduce COGS. It's a sign of the times that now Lenovo/Thinkpad, which has typically been sold at a higher margin, has now gone widescreen almost exclusively. It's too expensive to maintain and support two different form factors.
As to Widescreen vs 4:3? ::shruggs:: To each his (or her) own. It's not customer preference that is driving this, it's most likely simply price.
I rock a T61p with a 1900x1200, so i've got the vertical. Personally though, it's very difficult for me to live without at least a thousand pixels vertically. If I didn't get the WUXGA I would have probably waited to get a new lappy.
WS all the way
anything 14" or smaller, definitely prefer 4:3 standard display. I have a 4:3 T-60 and it's great. Tested the widescreen version and the lack of verticle screen real-estate really annoys me. Hate having to constantly scroll down...
I'm currently using dual 19" monitors. 1280x1024 each. Ratio is 5:4 and I like it.
widescreen baby, 16x10
4:3 sucks. When I got my first widescreen monitor I thought I would be bothered by the smaller vertial space, I wasnt. The increased horizontal space is so much more valuable than the vertical. Theres no way I would ever use 4:3 again, you could give me an amazing 4:3 monitor for free and I wouldnt take it. Widescreen in games is also a necessity, it makes an incredible difference with a wider FOV. 4:3 makes me feel claustrophobic now.
Death to 4:3!
That means Thinkpads won't have QXGA screen anymore...
Pity
Have a 4:3 T60, love it, I prefer the size of the laptop to ve smaller
widescreen is the future
gotta be widescreen, 16:9 or 16:10. i think it just looks nicer, and is easier on the eyes.
I went around to all the big computer company websites and it seems that only Dell still sells a standard aspect ratio laptop (Latitude D530)
Applications Places System (current window title) (tray) (weather) (clock)
(menu) (toolbar) (address bar) (grab space) (window controls)
(tab bar when in use)
-----------
window content
-----------
(window list)
..that's how I want to use my vertical screen real estate. No status bars, with merged title, menu, and tool bars, and the current window title applet centered in my top panel.
Bring on the widescreen.
By the way, if you like that idea, please leave a comment here:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=521131
Oh yeah, I've already riddled engadget with my new purchasing decision, but I'll state the screen resolution I opted for again:
1440 x 900 pixels
Does Engadget not have voting polls?
I have a 15.4 widescreen HP laptop at home and a 4:3 lenovo T60 at work.
I like both of them, though widescreen is certainly better for media/entertainment.
I finally upgraded to a 19" Samsung LCD from my old 19" Dell CRT, and I can never go back. 4:3 screens are just unnatural. Humans naturally see in "widescreen," if you will, so the 16:9 and 16:10 monitors just make more sense.
I'm a proponent of more pixels. If 20" is 4:3 and it is 1400x1050 v. 1600x1200 give me the latter of the two any day. But if you're comparing 1400x1050 20" 4:3 v. 1680x1050 16:10 I'll take the 20" widescreen.
This was what I went by when I bought my two 1600x1200 panels for my desktop until I bought my wife a 20" widescreen and just like the aspect ratio better and bought a 24" 1920x1200 panel- love that. So all that to say my T60 that I'm typing on now is 1400x1050- if they wanna make that a 1680x1050 than I'm quite okay with it. Again I say, more pixels the better. :)