The ThinkPad Classic Thread

[Omineca]

I've been watching the release of the BlackBerry Classic today, and the really interesting thing is how BlackBerry's representatives, from the CEO on down, are admitting that the company had discarded features (both hardware and software) that their core customers really wanted.

If Lenovo was to build a "ThinkPad Classic," what would you have them include from past models?

I'll start. I want the ******* flip-down rear feet back!

[killer]

There will always be a market for retro versions of everything. Roberts Radios in the UK has worked on that theme very successfully for years but, at the same time, they have always adhered to the objective of using old packaging with the latest technology.

It is no good losing control of technological advances just to satisfy a few people's need for 4:3 screens which seems to be an obsession amongst the few.

The market demands 16:9 so that's what gets sold.

It is a simple dilemma to solve; old or new. If the world wants 16:9 and you want 4:3 then I have to say sorry but you are on a loser unless you can make a fortune from the few remaining individuals that require that outdated format.

Maybe there is a market but please do a test before assuming it is reality. As someone said to me, there are very few slippers sold in Mexico so maybe there is a market. Go to Mexico and ask them if they want slippers and the answer is negative. A hole in the market is not always a commercial proposition.

[brchan]

I love that feature on the 770! Reduces neck strain by moving the monitor up.

[rkawakami]

I'll start. I want the ******* flip-down rear feet back!

That's what a docking station is for . For me, I want the feel of a 600-series keyboard without the unnecessary (to me) touchpad. Would like that on my T410/T420 systems...

[ajkula66]

I've been watching the release of the BlackBerry Classic today, and the really interesting thing is how BlackBerry's representatives, from the CEO on down, are admitting that the company had discarded features (both hardware and software) that their core customers really wanted.

Well, I'm waiting for them to release the Classic on VZW, and I'll happily order one. I'm afraid it might be too late for BB, but I'll support their effort nevertheless.

If Lenovo was to build a "ThinkPad Classic," what would you have them include from past models?

Funny enough, I was thinking something along the same lines.

7-row keyboard. Or bust.

[ajkula66]

The market demands 16:9 so that's what gets sold.

In all fairness, how do you - or anyone else - know that *for a fact* ?

Were we ever given a choice? Think about it.

[pianowizard]

It is no good losing control of technological advances just to satisfy a few people's need for 4:3 screens which seems to be an obsession amongst the few.

The market demands 16:9 so that's what gets sold.

When 4:3 was gradually being phased out, I was somewhat obsessed with it for a while but after using 16:10 and 16:9 for over 10 years (I bought my first widescreen laptop, the Dell Inspiron 700m, in Oct 2004), I now like 4:3 the least among these three aspect ratios. For desktop monitors, I still prefer 4:3 and 5:4 when space is tight and we have many such instances in my lab, but if I have sufficient space, I would rather have 16:10 and 16:9 any day.

Thus, I wouldn't want Lenovo to make this hypothetical Thinkpad Classic too classic (i.e. 4:3). 16:10 would be the most classic that I am willing to go.

In all fairness, how do you - or anyone else - know that *for a fact* ?

Were we ever given a choice? Think about it.

I don't think the market demanded 16:10, and then 16:9. However, now that nearly everyone has gotten used to widescreen, I suspect that most people would be reluctant to return to 4:3 or 5:4. I bought my tallscreen laptops (Dell Inspiron 7500 and Panasonic Let's Note CF-Y9) purely as collectibles; I don't really enjoy using them that much.

[Saucey]

I still think there is hope for a 4:3 display, a few tablets have been coming in that aspect ratio.

I think people will grow tired of the 16:9 display, especially when they've noticed the difference between an HD and FHD display.
Though I have to say, 16:9 monitors are not bad at all if you can flip them, they are kind of odd at times but can be very neat.

My main gripe is the waste of space a 16:9 laptop brings, a lot of bezel space on the lids.

[Omineca]

It is no good losing control of technological advances just to satisfy a few people's need for 4:3 screens which seems to be an obsession amongst the few.

It's funny that this objection was raised before anyone mentioned screen dimensions. For the record, my preference is the 15" 16:10 format. It's great for working with two documents side-by-side.

[Medessec]

My personal theory on why 4:3 was phased out in favor of 16:9- with TVs and home theatre adopting widescreen, combined with the transition from CRT, Plasma Projection to LCD panel TVs, manufacturing for widescreen panels was swiftly thrown into gear. From there- some big wig in a company somewhere decided on a whim to cash in on this by sharing manufacturing of widescreen with laptop panels, which would be at the time only marginally cheaper... but they could produce it as a novel market ploy, with "multimedia capability in widescreen." Of course most people who don't care much about the productive and functional value of a laptop will fall for it, and this plus the fact that other laptop manufacturers were soon dipping into the same idea, created a runaway effect where laptop manufacturers would gradually favor widescreen to ease production.

I personally find 4:3 useful in those right times- so I'd definitely prefer it in the situations that call for it. Web content, documents, portrait content and Photoshopping, I love my Frankenpad for it. 16:9 is useful to me... almost never. Movies, that's about it. On the other hand, 16:10 passes by me as one of the most versatile aspect ratios, and in the case of a laptop display, does the best with all different types of content. Despite there still being a 16 as the numerator, the 10 gives the screen the additional space (in my opinion) that you need, and gives you a more suitable resolution for productivity.


As for the OP-if I was to imagine Lenovo doing a tribute Thinkpad, I'd imagine something that takes a close exterior design inspiration from the 600, T2x, probably closer to the T4x, as a slimmer laptop would definitely be more marketable. To me, part of what makes a classic Thinkpad a classic Thinkpad is it's expandability, and the docking accessories play a huge part in that. So- SelectaDock/Dock II/2503 Dock reminiscent. As for the display, IPS Flexview obviously... They'd probably go for the 3:2 aspect ratio instead of the 4:3- since quite a few tablets use that.

Now, I understand a lot of people wouldn't want an "old Thinkpad made new" in it's literal format, so I wouldn't mind a tribute Thinkpad done up in a new cosmetic... but NO simple, clean look. NO passive, cutsy appearance. NO absurdly big unified trackpad with vague clickers, or MacBook-esque appearance. A ThinkPad must be pronounced, distinguished, executive, and brutally utilitarian. It can be presentable and brisk on the outside, with a uniform surface, well-kept and well designed casing, but a Thinkpad cannot be made simple for the sake of simplicity. In it's core design, a Thinkpad must keep every feature immediately available to it's user regardless of whether or not the user fully understands the capabilities of the laptop.

[Unknown_K]

The first widescreen laptops were something like 800 x480 which sucked. I loved my older 15" 1280x1024 (and 1400x1050) laptop screens much more then 1366x768 widescreens. Once you get into 1680x1050 and 1900x1200 you have plenty of pixels for side by side work without scrolling too much. Still most websites have too much unused area on the sides.

The whole widescreen thing became standard because manufacturers sold laptops based on screen size. Its much easier and cheaper to make a 15" widescreen then a 15" 4:3 (less area) plus laptops were powerful enough to play DVD's and eventually HD video. Laptops and phones pretty much have become mobile media and app players.

[Norway Pad]

Along the lines of what others also have suggested, my Classic / Tribute Thinkpad would be along the lines of the 600 series. I used a 600 to check the forum before I went to bed last night, and it makes me happy every time I use it. The older models, like the 750, and to some extent also the 760, 765 and 770 seem kind of boxy by todays standard, while the 600 has a design that still today seems kind of sleek and streamlined. If it sports a 4:3 display or a more widescreen oriented 16:10 display is no big deal, as long it is a modern and bright high resolution IPS display. Maybe also a small Touchpad. Basically a 16:10 600 series, with 2 more USB ports, an eSATA port and Display Port instead of the parallel / serial ports on the back. Put a modern motherboard into this combo, and you have my dream laptop.

[brchan]

Lenovo should also bring back the dedicated volume and brightness knobs/sliders on the 600. Those made it so quick and easy to adjust settings.

[ajkula66]

Lenovo has so many classic models at their disposal - be it from IBM era or their own - that they could creatively build upon.

Food for thought: X301 with a modern ULV CPU and a 1920x1200 IPS LCD. Two RAM slots. Atheros AC card. Optional trackpadless touchpad.

[pianowizard]

I still think there is hope for a 4:3 display, a few tablets have been coming in that aspect ratio.

Tablets are designed to alternate between portrait and landscape modes. 16:9 doesn't work well on small to medium tablets because they become too narrow when rotated into portrait orientation.

I think people will grow tired of the 16:9 display, especially when they've noticed the difference between an HD and FHD display.

I am not following. When people notice that FHD is much better than HD, they will prefer FHD and grow tired of HD. But FHD is still 16:9! Perhaps you are saying that people will realize it's good to have more pixels vertically. But it's also good to have lots of pixels horizontally, so I doubt that many people would like to downgrade from 1920x1080 to 1400x1050 or even 1600x1200.

My main gripe is the waste of space a 16:9 laptop brings, a lot of bezel space on the lids.

But that's not an intrinsic limitation of 16:9. I think these annoyingly large bezels are due to engineers trying to reduce laptop thickness by displacing components laterally.

Of course most people who don't care much about the productive and functional value of a laptop will fall for it

A 1920x1080 laptop isn't productive or functional?

16:9 is useful to me... almost never.

Again, not even 1920x1080?

They'd probably go for the 3:2 aspect ratio instead of the 4:3- since quite a few tablets use that.

All iPads, iPad Airs and iPad Minis ever made have been 4:3.

The first widescreen laptops were something like 800 x480 which sucked.

You are thinking of the first netbooks made by Asus in 2007, some of which were indeed 800x480. Or perhaps you are thinking of the pocket-sized subnotebooks and handheld PCs from the 1990s. But the first widescreen *laptop* was Apple's 2001 PowerBook G4, with a 15.2" 1152x768 (3:2) screen. The widescreen laptops made shortly afterward by other companies were at least 1280x800.

Still most websites have too much unused area on the sides.

That's because you are not supposed to maximize the browser on the screen. A decade ago, many people hated widescreens for this same reason: they maximized all windows just like they had always done on 4:3 screens. On widescreens, we are supposed to reduce the width of the browser so that it's just wide enough to show a web page without horizontal scrolling. Then, use the freed up space to display another window.

[Medessec]

A 1920x1080 laptop isn't productive or functional?

In my opinion, nowhere near as productive or functional as 16:10, 3:2 or 4:3 resolutions of the same pixel depth. Any laptop can be "functional" per-se, but some can get the job done a lot better, easier, and faster than others. The only sort of productivity that matters to me is when it's done right.

Again, not even 1920x1080?

I will admit 1920x1080 is far more useful than 1366x768, or 1280x720, but that still doesn't set aside the fact that it's a resolution that is based solely off of multimedia standards, and not computing standards. Laptops COULD employ a better aspect ratio for the job, but they don't, because most people don't care enough. This prospect of compromise is what gets me off the most.

I don't mind there being widescreen laptops, I really don't. The problem I have is the fact that aspect ratios that mean something- that actually suit me better(and others apparently!) are completely alienated and barred from production because of other people's ignorance.

But it's okay! Because I sit here with a Thinkpad T601F(15" 1600x1200 Flexview IPS UXGA), Clevo D900F(17" 1920x1200 WUXGA LG Gloss), Thinkpad W700DS(17" 1920x1200 WUXGA Samsung Matte Dual-bulb MaxBright), and an X60T(12" 1400x1050 Flexview IPS SXGA+). All these laptops are powerful enough for every purpose I have lined up for each, and there's really no need to update or have newer hardware, when this all works just fine. I will admit these screens spoil me a bit, but why not?

All iPads, iPad Airs and iPad Minis ever made have been 4:3.

I was mostly thinking of the Surface Pro, which uses 3:2. I was also remembering the Google Pixel, but... eh.

Most tablets I've seen actually use the 16:10 res which is quite strange to me... but either way, it would appear that manufacturing an LCD panel in an odd aspect ratio certainly isn't a farfetched concept...

[Norway Pad]

Now that the discussion drifted into aspect ratios, I can add the following opinion. I don't mind using widescreen monitors or screens, as I anyway make my main window approximately the shape of a 16:10 window, which leaves room on the left hand side for the Windows calculator, a narrow notepad, access to desktop icons, etc. The biggest problem with widescreen displays, as I see it, is actually the shape it dictates the laptops to have. For some reason a square shaped laptop seems to have a better possibility to fit in a bag, on a shelf, in your lap in a narrow seat on a plane, in any room where space is limited really, instead of one that's wider and less deep. When I got my work T510, I was always annoyed that it somehow didn't fit as good in situations where I was used to carrying the T60. That's partly why I have moved away from 15" laptops towards the 14" ones when dealing with widescreen models. A compromise between less screen real estate, but better portability.

Touching back on the topic: *Still dreaming about my Thinkpad 600 with 4:3 or 16:10 IPS display, 3xUSB, eSATA, and latest generation i7 CPU*

[FryPpy]

New year is comming... SO my dream - W1 as it was shown in photos with good 7row keyboard (it can have clickpad but trackpoint buttons are must be) - nothing less and nothing more;) + Resurrection of W7x0 and X3x0 production line. I like this beauty and the beast;)

But this words are only dream. 16:9 is a trend and profitable. It is multimedia approved and most non professional users want their gadgets for mulimedia eating;) 7row keyboards (and keyboards at all) are useless for multimedia eating - tablets / touchables are in trend. W7x0 class notebooks are definitely expensive professional tools. Nonprofessionals are an order of magnitude more than the IT professionals and they made a trend. The business follow the money. IBM thinkpad was a tool for professionals (and businessman), but now we are minority Lenovo makes their tools profitable and follow the money.
X3x0 is a tipical ultrabook - why Lenovo don't fight for this market??

More optimistic wishes:
- Keyboard options - like Toughbook (different keyboards for one model - classic + chiklet + rubber), Thinkpads can have different keyboards - chiclet + chiclet self illuminated + classic!!!
- Try to make W70xDS approach in non-workstation class notebook. New thin frameless LCDs can make DualScreen design thin and light. And it makes possible to use wide screen and normal screen in different use cases on same device (but Windows can't handle this).
- Thin screen frame - UltraConnect antennas makes screen frame thicker. Almost all antennas (except WWAN) can be placed under thin frame (remember X61). And WWAN antenna can be placed under thick upper edge of frame (symmetrical design) making room for thinklight and good screen latches for free.

BTW
2 documents side by side. From Vista's desktop this becomes common (and some times i hate this when i want to move window to the edge and it snaps to halfscreen). But from the old days MS Word have ability to divide screan for 2 documents one above another. And that was a surprise when i was not found this lever (for devide documents) in office 2013;) wide hardware screen design makes more awful design decisions in software. Desktop gadgets + charms eating right half of wide screen. Left dock because tall task bar eating vertical resolution. Big Ribbon design (good for finger touch) instead of menus eating vertical resolution. 2 equal programms placed side by side with Ribbon menus instead of MDI interface eats space...
But we use (eat) this because there is no alternatives;)

[precip9]

The market demands 16:9 so that's what gets sold.

No, it doesn't. It was forced upon them by LCD makers who do volume in TV screens.

[Omineca]

But from the old days MS Word have ability to divide screan for 2 documents one above another. And that was a surprise when i was not found this lever (for devide documents) in office 2013;)

I had totally forgotten about the above/below split screen in MS Word! I haven't used it since Word 6 on Windows 3.1. I can't believe it's still there, but then, when you think about it, how much of the basic functionality of Word has changed since version 6? For the day to day things that I do in Word, the only meaningful changes have involved mucking up my keyboard shortcuts.

[pianowizard]

In my opinion, nowhere near as productive or functional as 16:10, 3:2 or 4:3 resolutions of the same pixel depth.

What's "pixel depth"? A Google search suggests that it means "color depth", but I am sure that isn't what you meant. Did you mean pixel count?

The only sort of productivity that matters to me is when it's done right.

You mean, the kind of productivity that I gain from laying out windows side by side on 1920x1080 isn't right?

I will admit 1920x1080 is far more useful than 1366x768, or 1280x720, but that still doesn't set aside the fact that it's a resolution that is based solely off of multimedia standards, and not computing standards.

Why does that matter? If 1920x1080 is good for productivity, then it's good for productivity, even if it was first used in movies. By your logic, 4:3 also isn't good for computing, since it actually started as a video and photo format, not as an aspect ratio for computer monitors. When 4:3 was adopted, computers didn't even exist!

Laptops COULD employ a better aspect ratio for the job, but they don't, because most people don't care enough.

I care a great deal about how efficiently I get my job done. So, how come I like 16:9 more than 4:3?

The problem I have is the fact that aspect ratios that mean something- that actually suit me better(and others apparently!) are completely alienated and barred from production because of other people's ignorance.

I would rather have 16:9 than 4:3, due to higher productivity. So, that makes me ignorant?

The way you express your preference for 4:3 is so similar to how trackpointers express their love for their favorite pointing device: everyone else is ignorant.

Because I sit here with a Thinkpad T601F(15" 1600x1200 Flexview IPS UXGA), Clevo D900F(17" 1920x1200 WUXGA LG Gloss), Thinkpad W700DS(17" 1920x1200 WUXGA Samsung Matte Dual-bulb MaxBright), and an X60T(12" 1400x1050 Flexview IPS SXGA+). All these laptops are powerful enough for every purpose I have lined up for each, and there's really no need to update or have newer hardware, when this all works just fine. I will admit these screens spoil me a bit, but why not?

There's no argument that 1920x1200 is superior to 1920x1080. I can also see why some people such as you prefer 1600x1200 over 1920x1080 -- even I find 1600x1200 better once in a while, perhaps 30% of the time. But 1400x1050? That's the resolution I have on my Panasonic Let's Note CF-Y9, and of course I had it on many laptops before it (CF-Y7/5/4, T60/43/42/23/21, X61 tablet, Sony Z1A, Inspiron 8200). It's amazing how crippling it is when compared with the 13.3" 1920x1080 on my Sony, despite the fact that the latter's 165.6 DPI makes me "squint" a little bit.

I was mostly thinking of the Surface Pro, which uses 3:2.

Not the Surface Pro or the Surface Pro 2. Only the Surface Pro 3 uses 3:2, and it's not exactly a tablet -- it's half tablet half laptop. I don't know of any other tablets that use 3:2.

I was also remembering the Google Pixel, but... eh.

That's not even a half tablet. It's 100% laptop!

Most tablets I've seen actually use the 16:10 res which is quite strange to me...

Not strange at all. With this aspect ratio, a tablet held in portrait orientation is still reasonably wide, wider than 16:9.

but either way, it would appear that manufacturing an LCD panel in an odd aspect ratio certainly isn't a farfetched concept...

Of course not. I wasn't saying 3:2 is farfetched. After all, it has existed for longer than even 16:10, since the first widescreen laptop was 3:2 (Apple's 2001 PowerBook G4). Instead, I was challenging your statement "They'd probably go for the 3:2 aspect ratio instead of the 4:3- since quite a few tablets use that", which suggested that there are many more 3:2 tablets than 4:3 ones.

When I got my work T510, I was always annoyed that it somehow didn't fit as good in situations where I was used to carrying the T60.

As I said earlier, this is mainly (though not entirely) due to the extra thick bezels that laptops started to use at about the same time that they went widescreen. If you can visualize your T510 having the same bezel thickness as your T60, then you would convince yourself that the T510 has a needlessly large footprint.

- Try to make W70xDS approach in non-workstation class notebook. New thin frameless LCDs can make DualScreen design thin and light.

You are almost describing Apple's 17-inch Macbook Pro. I have always found it pitiful that none of the Wintel brands ever came up with similarly portable 17" 1920x1200 laptops. The closest were probably Dell's Vostro 1720 and Gateway's NX860X, though they were still quite thick. I am disgusted by the heft and bulkiness of my HP EliteBook 8740w.

But from the old days MS Word have ability to divide screan for 2 documents one above another. And that was a surprise when i was not found this lever (for devide documents) in office 2013;)

Office 2010 can still do this. I've never tried Office 2013.

Big Ribbon design (good for finger touch) instead of menus eating vertical resolution.

I have ribbons minimized nearly all the time.

[RealBlackStuff]

Everybody is allowed to have their own opinions, but there are much nicer ways to express them.
No need to get aggressive about them!

[pianowizard]

Everybody is allowed to have their own opinions, but there are much nicer ways to express them.
No need to get aggressive about them!

You like 4:3 and the trackpoint, and hate Windows 8 and Vista, correct? Imagine that I labeled all 4:3 lovers, trackpoint lovers, Windows 8 haters and Vista haters "ignorant". How would you feel? I am certain that you WOULD get aggressive!

[Norway Pad]

When I got my work T510, I was always annoyed that it somehow didn't fit as good in situations where I was used to carrying the T60.

As I said earlier, this is mainly (though not entirely) due to the extra thick bezels that laptops started to use at about the same time that they went widescreen. If you can visualize your T510 having the same bezel thickness as your T60, then you would convince yourself that the T510 has a needlessly large footprint.

I don't think I am trying to convince myself about anything. Even though I love my 4:3 IPS screens, I try to keep an open mind about most things, including Win8, Win10, whatever. So I focus on practical experiences, and judge new things and concepts from what they ARE to me in daily use, like quoted above. So it's not like I decide that it flat out won't work for me just because it's a widescreen laptop.

[ajkula66]

IDK...

With everything that I have scattered around the house, I find myself hopping between my T43pSF (1600x1200, ID Tech IPS) and my custom T61 (1920x1200, LG Philips TN) 99% of the time...

I've given both the T410/20 and W510/520 a benefit of the doubt more than once. None were kept, albeit for different reasons.

I foresee myself having a huge problem once the T61 gets too slow/outdated for my modest needs. The good thing is that I can't see that happening anytime soon.

My $0.02 only...

[FryPpy]

What's "pixel depth"? A Google search suggests that it means "color depth", but I am sure that isn't what you meant. Did you mean pixel count?

I think he meant pixel density (DPI, PPI).

You are almost describing Apple's 17-inch Macbook Pro.

NO. I am not describing MBP or any other 17" behemoth! I am describing DualScreen concept which can be reproduced on any screen size (14" - why not . If one want wide screen for side by side work - use second screen. If not - push it back. BUT this concept NON MULTIMEDIA approved;) We will not want to see HD movie with gap between screens.
BTW I don't have any touch with MacBooks. But one of my colleagues have told me his story, when 15" MBP have fallen from coffee table and thin aluminium screen shell have bent;) And he corrected it heroically with pliers;) Al is very soft material for 17" surface and i think if it is not enforced first drop of this apple become it last fall;)
BTW2 2 document work is productive... but think further - it is copypasting - not creating . Old days (when internet was very slow and very expensive) we did all work using only that we have offline. Now most programmers have IDE on first screen, browser with help or example on the next and testbed (VM or remote connection) on last. But they do 1 thing at a time and mind-switching takes no less time than pressing Alt+Tab. All techwriters copypasting or (better) summarizing from right document to the left. But in old days we do this things on a single screen and don't feel themselves crippled.

I have always found it pitiful that none of the Wintel brands

The days of 17" MBP Apple become Wintel brand.

I have ribbons minimized nearly all the time.

Because you have been crippled with wide screens (insufficient screen height;) <- it is joke
All this design concepts rob us of something and we must adapt themselves to this new environment. We all adapting and big compan think that we like it. But it is not 100% right - we must make work and we do it with tools they give us. I don't want adapting. I want choosing right tool to make my work. "Right" in terms of productivity, ergonomy and beauty (the last criterion is very subjectively). I will not buy any new Thinkpads till they understood my needs. Is this the main concept of free market? But they don't. Because for one "me" there are 1000 men who will buy!

[pianowizard]

I don't think I am trying to convince myself about anything.

"You would convince yourself" just means "you would realize". Your 15.0" T60 actually has a larger screen area than your 15.6" T510, 108.00 sq. in. versus 103.99 sq. in. If the T510's screen bezel wasn't so thick, you would find the laptop less clumsy. Blame the T510 designers, not the 16:9 ratio.

With everything that I have scattered around the house, I find myself hopping between my T43pSF (1600x1200, ID Tech IPS) and my custom T61 (1920x1200, LG Philips TN) 99% of the time...I've given both the T410/20 and W510/520 a benefit of the doubt more than once. None were kept, albeit for different reasons.

I am not surprised the T410 and T420 weren't as useful as your 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 laptops, since they are limited to 1600x900.

I think he meant pixel density (DPI, PPI).

I doubt it. If Medessec meant pixel density, that sentence would read "16:9 is nowhere near as productive or functional as 16:10, 3:2 or 4:3 resolutions of the same pixel density". That wouldn't make sense, and I will give just one of many possible examples: 10.4" 1024x768 (4:3) is 123.08 DPI, nearly the same as 15.0" 1600x900 (16:9) which is 122.38 DPI. No one would find the former more "productive or functional" as the latter, because the latter is both taller and wider.

Instead, I suspect he was talking about how to distribute a fixed number of pixels. For example, let's say we have a total of 1,920,000 pixels to play with. If we arrange them into 4:3, 15:10, 16:10 or 16:9 aspect ratios, we would get these resolutions:

4:3 ==> 1600x1200
15:10 ==> 1697x1131
16:10 ==> 1753x1095
16:9 ==> 1848x1039

Which of these is the most conducive to productivity? It would depend on what each person does. For example, if someone works on just one Word document at a time and if this person always has it maximized, then the 4:3 would be the best. But if a person works primarily with Excel spreadsheets with lots of columns, then the 16:9 would be the best.

Now, if we disregard these conventional aspect ratios and force the screen to have 1920 columns of pixels, its resolution would be 1920x1000. I probably would like 1600x1200 a little more because a height of 1000 pixels is kind of short. But in reality, we have 1920x1080 instead of 1920x1000. I prefer 1920x1080 over 1600x1200 because I get 8% more pixels and side-by-side viewing is much easier. 1920x1080 is 10% shorter than 1600x1200, but that isn't a huge handicap IMO.

Of course, this discussion has been about laptop screens. For desktop monitors, I am not fond of 1920x1080 because they don't really serve any purpose. If space is tight, I go with 17" 1280x1024 or 20" 1600x1200, or rotate 22" 1920x1200 into 1200x1920 like I've done to my Lenovo L220x monitors. 19" 1680x1050 isn't bad either. If space isn't an issue, I would want to have at least 23" 2048x1152, which gives 13.8% more pixels than 1920x1080. I once had three 1920x1080 monitors but sold them all in the past few weeks because I found them pointless.

BTW2 2 document work is productive... but think further - it is copypasting - not creating . Old days (when internet was very slow and very expensive) we did all work using only that we have offline. Now most programmers have IDE on first screen, browser with help or example on the next and testbed (VM or remote connection) on last. But they do 1 thing at a time and mind-switching takes no less time than pressing Alt+Tab. All techwriters copypasting or (better) summarizing from right document to the left. But in old days we do this things on a single screen and don't feel themselves crippled.

You may be right for these two particular scenarios, but many people's work benefits greatly from tiling many more than just 2 windows. Right now I have 8 windows displayed on my 5 desktop monitors, and I am not even doing any serious work!

[Norway Pad]

Your 15.0" T60 actually has a larger screen area than your 15.6" T510, 108.00 sq. in. versus 103.99 sq. in. If the T510's screen bezel wasn't so thick, you would find the laptop less clumsy. Blame the T510 designers, not the 16:9 ratio.

My T510 is at work, but I will bring the T60 up there when I go back to compare and see how much narrower the T510 actually could have been made. But even if some width could have been saved by using thinner bezels, a 16:9 screen dictates a laptop to have a different shape than a 4:3. And no matter how much wider it really needed to be, the change would have been in a direction that struck me as less suitable in certain situations.

[pianowizard]

My T510 is at work, but I will bring the T60 up there when I go back to compare and see how much narrower the T510 actually could have been made.

You don't need to because I have the exact dimensions:

15.0" 4:3 = 12.00" x 9.00" = 108.00 sq. in.
15.6" 16:9 = 13.60" x 7.65" = 103.99 sq. in.

15.0" T60 = 13.2" x 10.6" = 139.9 sq. in.
15.6" T510 = 14.68" x 9.65" = 141.7 sq. in.

As you can see, the T510 has a larger footprint than the T60 despite having a smaller screen area.

But even if some width could have been saved by using thinner bezels, a 16:9 screen dictates a laptop to have a different shape than a 4:3. And no matter how much wider it really needed to be, the change would have been in a direction that struck me as less suitable in certain situations.

But more suitable in situations where you might prefer the laptop to be less deep.

[Norway Pad]

To avoid wasting other users time reading about whether my T510's size worked better or worse for me than the T60's size, I just call it a draw and agree that it was probably also situations where it's size worked better.