Thoughts on the T440 and T450 quality

[edik]

Again only my opinions!

[RealBlackStuff]

Since this thread is about T440 and T450, I just found some interesting info.
T440/T450 as well as X240/X250 Series are members of an 'elite' group that can have THREE storage drives!
The T440/X240 Series do not mention this in their HMM, but T450/X250 Series do.
All of 'em mention them in their frubom lists (e.g. 3rd NGFF adapter)
These storage drives consist of:
Drive 1: 2.5" HD/SSD in the main drive bay.
Drive 2: M.2 SSD instead of the WWAN card.
Drive 3: M.2/NGFF (2242) SSD on an adapter-board instead of the Smartcard-reader.

For some strange reason Drive 3 is NOT mentioned (or available?) in the T540/T550 series.

They look like this, although the cable can be different.

[edik]

T440/T450 as well as X240/X250 Series are members of an 'elite' group that can have THREE storage drives!

Well this is an advantage over the older T series + UltraBay drive

I have an M.2 2240/2242 SSD and a normal SSD for a dual spindle system, apparently the (other visible) M.2 (2240/2) can't take a third drive (and is populated by the WLAN/BT Card) but I had heard rumours of this (hidden) #3 drive because somebody some time ago mentioned it about the X240 (I think...).

Now you have got me interested... would be great to have a three spindle system... haven't had one of those since the A31p

[edik]

Drive 1: 2.5" HD/SSD in the main drive bay.
Drive 2: M.2 SSD instead of the WWAN card.
Drive 3: M.2/NGFF (2242) SSD on an adapter-board instead of the Smartcard-reader.

Ok in my T450 I have a Samsung 2.5" Standard SSD 240G, and then a M.2 2242 Sandisk 32G SSD, and also a M.2 WLAN Card... I tried replacing the WLAN Card with the Sandisk M.2 but it wasn't recognized (although it did fit OK).

So currently SSD (Normal) + SSD (M.2 NGFF 2242) + WLAN (M.2) in the T450.

This is only 2-spindle as the M.2 WLAN Card socket doesn't recognize the Sandisk M.2 2242 card (but as I said it does fit!).

What you seem to be saying there is another (Drive 3: M.2/NGFF (2242) SSD on an adapter-board instead of the Smartcard-reader.)...

So in theory I could have:

#1 Normal 2.5" SSD (which I have)
#2 M.2 NGFF 2240/2242 SSD (which I also have)
#3 M.2 WLAN/BT Card (which is also fitted)

==AND==

#4 another M.2. 2240/2242 Card... possibly SSD

That is interesting

[jdrou]

T440/T450 as well as X240/X250 Series are members of an 'elite' group that can have THREE storage drives!

Wonder if that also applies to T440p? Might buy one just to test it.
That would make T440p a 4-drive unit comparable to Precision M6800 (except lower drive capacities).
(Note my MSI GT72 can take 4x M.2 2280 + 1x 2.5" internal + 1x 2.5" in optical bay though.)

[RealBlackStuff]

The T440p and T450p have an optical drive, which you can replace with a 3rd adapter+HD/SSD.
Their cardreader is connected with a flex flat cable, so no go for #4.

[zephxiii]

I think the biggest gripe i have is with all the appalling screens in the 14" T series, and some in the 15". Usually u got something "ok" with the higher rez 15" panels (and sometimes IPS if you can find one), but you were pretty much screwed on 14" until IPS T440s...from what I know.

Nothing but <3 for my IPS T450s screen.

[edik]

I think the biggest gripe i have is with all the appalling screens in the 14" T series, and some in the 15".

May be I am looking through rose tinted history glasses but I never really felt that the earlier T series had bad screens at all (and they did have excellent UXGA Flexviews on some of the 15" T43p at least) and it wasn't until I hit the T4XX I realized that some of the newer TN panels verged upon appalling.

Could it be valid that screens around 2005 were actually better than today? We had the Flexviews... the R50p QXGA and my old Dell C810 (Circa 2002) had a beautiful IBM Manufactured 15" UXGA panel... of course all of these were 4:3...

With Widescreen I guess came mass manufacturing and quality deterioration.

My T500 (1900x1200 WUXGA) had good quality (not sure if was IPS, probably not) but quite acceptable. T450 Stock 1600x900 was so bad as to border on unusable.

[zephxiii]

I think the biggest gripe i have is with all the appalling screens in the 14" T series, and some in the 15".

May be I am looking through rose tinted history glasses but I never really felt that the earlier T series had bad screens at all (and they did have excellent UXGA Flexviews on some of the 15" T43p at least) and it wasn't until I hit the T4XX I realized that some of the newer TN panels verged upon appalling.

Could it be valid that screens around 2005 were actually better than today? We had the Flexviews... the R50p QXGA and my old Dell C810 (Circa 2002) had a beautiful IBM Manufactured 15" UXGA panel... of course all of these were 4:3...

With Widescreen I guess came mass manufacturing and quality deterioration.

My T500 (1900x1200 WUXGA) had good quality (not sure if was IPS, probably not) but quite acceptable. T450 Stock 1600x900 was so bad as to border on unusable.

I should clarify, I'm mostly talking about the T410-T450 (non-IPS), and maybe T400 ( I can't remember that screen). I agree with the T500 though, i have the 1680 x 1050 on my #2 laptop (T500) at work and I enjoy that screen a lot.

[dr_st]

Could it be valid that screens around 2005 were actually better than today?

No. Your memory is playing tricks with you because you want to remember "the golden era" as being, well, "golden". The TN panels on Thinkpads were always crap, although the early Lenovo 15.4" workstations had some OK WSXGA+/WUXGA panels (your T500 being one of them). But along side these there was always the "rock bottom" sh!t (the XGA, then WXGA/WXGA+, then HD/HD+ screens, were usually quite terrible).

In 4:3 era the high-end Thinkpads could get you an IPS panel (which were only available on 15" behemoths, though). In the 8:5 (16:10) era, panel makers were not really offering IPS, and so Lenovo just tried to source better-than-average TN screens for their high-end models. They could be seen as quite good, and completely adequate, unless directly compared side-by-side to an IPS panel (but as these were not available in the same form factor, the comparison was moot).

This trend transitioned to early 16:9 as well. Then at some point, the average consumer got educated on panel technology, and suddenly there was demand for good screens, and so IPS and derivative technologies (PLS, FFS, AHVA) made a comeback. Now, since the 240/440/540 generations (as zephxiii pointed out), the high-end screens are IPS, and this time across the entire range of laptop sizes, which is a big advantage compared to what was in the IBM 4:3 time.

So I would say that in terms of screen quality (considering available resolutions, brightness, contrast and panel technologies), right now (16:9) era is the best, followed by the later 4:3 era, and the 16:10 era is last. Of course, if you just hate 16:9 form factor (as many do), that's a different story.

Before somebody jumps in and says 'but, but, but, WUXGA is better than FHD' - yes, but now you also have QHD on laptop screens, whereas WQXGA was never offered (and QXGA panels were more like esoteric proof-of-concept things rather than actual options).

[Ibthink]

Then at some point, the average consumer got educated on panel technology

Unfortunately, I don´t think that this is true.

The IPS-comeback in the Notebook-market was made possible by the sinking costs of IPS-panels. This is due to an external factor: Smartphones and Tablet grew into a massive market and their screens usually use(d) IPS-screens (now many high-end Smartphones use OLED). As more and more IPS screens for these small screen devices were made, the prices dropped, resulting in IPS re-emerging on Notebooks.

[dr_st]

The IPS-comeback in the Notebook-market was made possible by the sinking costs of IPS-panels. This is due to an external factor: Smartphones and Tablet grew into a massive market and their screens usually use(d) IPS-screens (now many high-end Smartphones use OLED). As more and more IPS screens for these small screen devices were made, the prices dropped, resulting in IPS re-emerging on Notebooks.

Then, wouldn't it be a rare case where smart people in the industry itself actually made some good decisions to give people good stuff without them even knowing that they wanted it? That would be even better.

[Thinkpad4by3]

Could it be valid that screens around 2005 were actually better than today?

No. Your memory is playing tricks with you because you want to remember "the golden era" as being, well, "golden". The TN panels on Thinkpads were always crap, although the early Lenovo 15.4" workstations had some OK WSXGA+/WUXGA panels (your T500 being one of them). But along side these there was always the "rock bottom" sh!t (the XGA, then WXGA/WXGA+, then HD/HD+ screens, were usually quite terrible).

In 4:3 era the high-end Thinkpads could get you an IPS panel (which were only available on 15" behemoths, though). In the 8:5 (16:10) era, panel makers were not really offering IPS, and so Lenovo just tried to source better-than-average TN screens for their high-end models. They could be seen as quite good, and completely adequate, unless directly compared side-by-side to an IPS panel (but as these were not available in the same form factor, the comparison was moot).

This trend transitioned to early 16:9 as well. Then at some point, the average consumer got educated on panel technology, and suddenly there was demand for good screens, and so IPS and derivative technologies (PLS, FFS, AHVA) made a comeback. Now, since the 240/440/540 generations (as zephxiii pointed out), the high-end screens are IPS, and this time across the entire range of laptop sizes, which is a big advantage compared to what was in the IBM 4:3 time.

So I would say that in terms of screen quality (considering available resolutions, brightness, contrast and panel technologies), right now (16:9) era is the best, followed by the later 4:3 era, and the 16:10 era is last. Of course, if you just hate 16:9 form factor (as many do), that's a different story.

Before somebody jumps in and says 'but, but, but, WUXGA is better than FHD' - yes, but now you also have QHD on laptop screens, whereas WQXGA was never offered (and QXGA panels were more like esoteric proof-of-concept things rather than actual options).

I compared my T42's 14" TN XGA rockbottom display to my T430s(900p) display side to side and the XGA display blows the living crap out of the T430s display.

Now throw in the 755C's(NOT 755Cs) display nad it puts my X230's IPS display a run for its money.

[dr_st]

I compared my T42's 14" TN XGA rockbottom display to my T430s(900p) display side to side and the XGA display blows the living crap out of the T430s display.

Now throw in the 755C's(NOT 755Cs) display nad it puts my X230's IPS display a run for its money.

If you could make a photo session of this side-by-side comparison, myself and many others would find it very beneficial, I'm sure.

Until you do, would you elaborate on the aspects in which the old displays are better?

[Thinkpad4by3]

I compared my T42's 14" TN XGA rockbottom display to my T430s(900p) display side to side and the XGA display blows the living crap out of the T430s display.

Now throw in the 755C's(NOT 755Cs) display nad it puts my X230's IPS display a run for its money.

If you could make a photo session of this side-by-side comparison, myself and many others would find it very beneficial, I'm sure.

Until you do, would you elaborate on the aspects in which the old displays are better?

The colors are plain richer. Yes, viewing angles still suck but the colors are vibrant on the 755C's display and on my A31(non-p) and T42.

[dr_st]

The colors are plain richer. Yes, viewing angles still suck but the colors are vibrant on the 755C's display and on my A31(non-p) and T42.

Now that you mention it, it occurred to me that the colors on the WXGA+ TN screen on my T410 were really dull out of the box, running Win7 with the default Intel driver and settings. So dull that I had to boost the color saturation in the Intel Graphics control panel. Once I did, the screen looked much nicer. Try it, it may improve your impression of the CS09 generation TN panels.

[edik]

edik wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:08 pm
Could it be valid that screens around 2005 were actually better than today?

dr_st wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:25 am
No. Your memory is playing tricks with you because you want to remember "the golden era" as being, well, "golden".

I admit I have a strong bias towards pre Lenovo crap machines... Anything before (and including) the T43p I won't hear criticism

It's just that I never really had any thoughts about poor screen quality until around the T420 when I noticed that some HD/HD+ panels looked so washed out as to be almost unusable even in normal office light. Now I had 760XL, 770, T30 and X31 machines that travelled the world with me at various times 1998-2006 (and most colleagues had the T23 or the T40), and were often used in South East Asia where it was hot and bright and the screens were perfectly readable... OK this is anecdotal and memory may be fading... but I really do feel that some of the non IPS panels of the last few years verge on appalling.

May be I'm getting older and grumpier and thinking back to the "good old days"...

Thinkpad4by3... would be good though to see some pics if you have time... so I can "ooh" and "aah".

Edited to say: dr_st I am glad you think of the era as "golden" as well