How much more would you pay for a 16:10, IPS display on any current Thinkpad?

I have a T420. Perhaps the only substantial critique I level about the machine is its rather mediorce display. The narrow viewing angles don't bother me much, but the graininess and lack of saturation does. Color reproduction is rather poor, and the MacBook Pro my T420 replaced had an even better display (although it was glossy).

The general trend of aspect ratios moving from 16:10 to 16:9 is even more distressing, but hey, what can you do? I would say the situation is worse for desktop monitors than it is for laptop LCDs.

I would pay an additional $100-$150 for a 16:10, IPS display at most for a future Thinkpad (if they even offer that option).

 

I don't think $100-$150 is going to get it done. If Lenovo were to offer a premium IPS display, it would most likely be 16:9 and like the HP Dreamcolor would cost more like $300-$400.

I am hoping it will be standard on the ThinkPad X2 but I don't think we'll know anything until next summer.

 

Well 16:10 is pretty much dead, so that shouldn't even be a factor.

IPS would have to depend on the resolution/size of the LCD. The X220 IPS option is so cheap because it's a 12.5" and only 1368x768. But if say the W520 were to get an IPS option @ 1080p, you'd probably easily pay 250 over the current FHD 95% color gamut screen, probably closer to 400 for everything just like the M4600/8560W upgrade to RGBLED IPS.

 

I wouldn't pay extra for a 16:10 display. For an IPS display, over a TN display of the same resolution, I'd be willing to pay maybe $50-100 extra depending on the quality of the TN and IPS displays in question, and the size/resolution of the display. Above that, and it's probably a bit too steep for my wallet.

 

For a 16:10 IPS display I'd be willing to pay around $200-250 max on top of the normal price.

 

I would pay something like $300 more if there's an option of 16:10 IPS.

 

IPS, maybe $50 more at most. The X220 IPS upgrade is a good price. Its not like I use my laptop at weird angles or need good color accuracy or anything.

16:10. I would pay up to $300 more for a 1440x900 screen on my X220. It can be complete crap, but I really want my vertical pixels back. 1600x900 would be better though.

 

I HOPE the W530 comes with IPS as an option at least. If they do, then it will be between that, and the 15" MacBook Pro ( the ultra thin model Apple is supposed to be releasing next year, hopefully with an IPS screen as well ).

 

I'd pay more for the 16:10 than the IPS if the panel is reasonable in quality.

 

IPS should be made compulsory!

 

What about people who want a crappy TN panel?

 

summary execution!

 

Same here.

 

Around $300.

 

$0.00

I don't care about 16:10, nor about IPS. I just want higher pixel density -- and besides, I like having a de facto privacy screen

 

30-50$ is max Id pay, better yet if IPS was standart given how widely available its is in modern tablets. I would not mind FullHD IPS in form factors as small as 11.6", after all, its 10" tablets can have one, why not self proclaimed premium laptops? If your screens suck at quality, you could have it all covered in gold and diamonds, I wouldnt care.

 

I might be willing to pay up to $150 extra for an exceptionally good screen. But it would need to be good when compared with the 1440 x 900 panels on my Dell E6400 / E6410 which are noticeably better than the 1600 x 900 panel on my T420s. Why the panel quality dropped when they changed the resolution is one of those unexplained mysteries unless it was part of the quest for increased profits.

John

 

A 16:10 IPS?

$0.


A UXGA 4:3 IPS (14 or 15)?

$500-800

 

I use both a T410 and a T420 every day at my office, and I don't think there was a drop in quality at all. Neither panel's very good, but neither is awful IMHO.

 

I don't care much about the angles but I want optimal resolution plus good contrast and color gamut.

 

I don't get the fetish for 4:3 or 5:4. I'm glad we've moved beyond that. 16:10 is the most superior aspect ratio, but unfortunately, everything, from my TV to my current ASUS monitor is in 16:9. Manageable, but 16:10 would make everything nicer. I suppose 4:3 works if you read a lot of text. Otherwise... it's 16:10.

 

I definitely prefer 4:3 aspect ratio screens. They provide more vertical resolution, 1050 on a 14" or 1200 on a 15" screen. Vertical resolution is more useful than extra space on the sides for most applications like Office and Internet, which are top to bottom oriented. Having more vertical resolution means less scrolling. You're right though, that ship sailed.

 

Tis true, but for the gamer such as myself, 16:10 offers the best blend. Too bad that ship has sailed. 16:9's not bad, but it's simply less than optimal.

 

If you can't see the shift in quality from the T60p series several years ago to present day, then I don't know what to say. There's no question in my mind the screen on the T410s is superior to the T420s. I can't speak to the T420 because I've never seen one, but the overall trend for the past five years couldn't be more apparent.

 

It is not a fetish, it is practical knowledge based on comparison and experience. Also, without wanting to diminish the merits of 16:10, there is no superiority whatsoever, because a 4:3 UXGA resolution of 1600x1200 in fact easily contains the screen real estate of the nowadays very common 16:10 WXGA+ 1440x900 or 16:9 WSXGA/HD+ 1600 x 900 resolution, but adds the most sorely missed vertical space of an additional 300 pixels on top. This is 25% more vertical display space. The move beyond therefore actually turned out to be rather a step back.

Nonetheless, a 16:10 WSXGA+ IPS display with a 1680x1050 resolution would probably be a very acceptable compromise. But, unfortunately, the industry is not thinking in terms of usability but rather in mere units of dollar bills, which is a rather mediocre basis for good technical design.

I wouldn't mind additionally paying the same price one currently has to pay for an IPS UXGA after market replacement screen, which is something between 100 and 200 EUR here in Europe. But if i would still have to compromise with a vertically challenged 16:9 display, than i'd rather invest my money elsewhere. If there really is no hope for a comeback of the wonderful 4:3 UXGA form factor, then at least a 16:10 WSXGA+ IPS display would defintely be a very welcome option on the Thinkpad market place.

If Lenovo would like to win me back as a paying customer for the hefty price tag of a brand new Thinkpad, instead of redirecting my purchase power in still viable used second hand equipment, they should better make sure to offer what i really would like to buy. If not, i have no problem to keep on working with my selfbuilt T61+ Frankenpads. This naturally means lost revenue for Lenovo, but they need to learn that the market is not only defined by the vendor, but in first place by the needs of their paying customers.

 

I believe that Apple still offers matte 16:10, 1680x1050 panels on their 15-inch MacBook Pros as an option, but yes, the 16:10 option is increasingly rare, with the 4:3 ratio practically extinct.

 

I just prefer the 16:10 aspect ratio due to the additional vertical real estate yet still having a wide display which is good for side by side windows for my school work.

 

What about WUXGA 16:10 RGBLED IPS in 15.4"? Though my Alienware's WUXGA RGBLED has pretty decent viewing angles, just wish it wasn't that...glossy. I can't think of any higher resolution that in IPS on a stock screen, minus T4x with QXGA mod..

 

I would prefer 16:10 if it would not cost mouch more than 16:9, so I would pay maybe 25 € for 16:10. For IPS I would pay 50 € more, because the better screen quality is important for me. At the moment I am happy with my 1600x90 LCD of my L520 (the screen quality is also good ). 1600x900 is so mouch better than 1024x768 like in my old R60.

 

The QXGA, which had a modified LCD housing, came on the R50p, not the T4x.