Lenovo ThinkPad T430u Ultrabook Arrives Later This Month

[btarunr]

Lenovo may have scored a lot of attention with its $1,400 X1 Carbon Ultrabook, but it's the ThinkPad T430u Ultrabook, which featured at CES 2012 (January) that has consumers looking forward to, due to its US $779 price-point. The T430u borrows several design elements from its more expensive sibling. The Ultrabook is said to be available later this month. The 14-inch Ultrabook comes equipped with a 1366 x 768 pixels screen, Intel Core "Ivy Bridge" processor, 8 GB of dual-channel DDR3 memory, HDD or optional 128 GB SSD, and optional GeForce GT 620M graphics.



Source: Engadget

[dieterd]

eh - why they put in these 620M - I bet nvidia is selling their old GF108 (40nm and that is preprevious gen. 420m-435m) for like 1$/1kg or something - but why they bother tu put them inside? I mean HD4000 is almost as capabale as that old peace of heat and noise. but unfortunatley - this is like trend in newest ultrabooks . I dont need that extra 1fps in low res gaming if I spend my money for overpriced SSD driven lightweight thinny, "shiny" thing!

[CounterZeus]

This puts my Lenovo netbook to shame....Hopefully the touchpad is a bit better than the last X series. Trackpoint makes up for it though.

[Andrei23]

768p is crap
is crap
crap
________________________
CRAP

[CounterZeus]

Originally Posted by Andrei23

768p is crap
is crap
crap
________________________
CRAP

More than enough for a 14"

[Frick]

Originally Posted by CounterZeus

More than enough for a 14"

Totally.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by Andrei23

768p is crap
is crap
crap
________________________
CRAP

Your post is crap, CRAP, CRAP

At least give a reason why it is crap.

In my opinion 768 for 14" hits the sweet spot between balancing gaming needs and nice screen. I would even downgrade a 900/1080 screen to native 768 to get a few more fps for my games.

Also, I think we should ban all the trolls for shitting in all screen related threads: 768 is crap, TN is crap, no 1440 -> crap, no 120Hz -> crap etc. If those retards are not happy with the product in question they can either make a constructive criticism or GTFO.

[diopter]

I use an 11" laptop and 1366 x 768 still irritates me. I don't use it for gaming; that's what my desktop at home is for.

[Frick]

Originally Posted by diopter

I use an 11" laptop and 1366 x 768 still irritates me. I don't use it for gaming; that's what my desktop at home is for.

Why does that irritate you at 11"?

[diopter]

Originally Posted by Frick

Why does that irritate you at 11"?

Same reason it does at any screen size. Not enough work space. Menu items eat up so much of the vertical area.

[1c3d0g]

Also, a high DPI ensures smooth font rendering. For some of us, that is more important than anything else in a notebook.

[Frick]

Originally Posted by diopter

Same reason it does at any screen size. Not enough work space. Menu items eat up so much of the vertical area.

Then maybe such small computers is not for you? I mean there is a limit to how small you can make things. It's natural that smaller size = smaller workspace.

[Andrei23]

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

Your post is crap, CRAP, CRAP

At least give a reason why it is crap.

In my opinion 768 for 14" hits the sweet spot between balancing gaming needs and nice screen. I would even downgrade a 900/1080 screen to native 768 to get a few more fps for my games.

Also, I think we should ban all the trolls for shitting in all screen related threads: 768 is crap, TN is crap, no 1440 -> crap, no 120Hz -> crap etc. If those retards are not happy with the product in question they can either make a constructive criticism or GTFO.

Insults over the internet always get me. On topic, I find it surreal that people are defending 768p on.... a tech site. That is depressing. The truth is 768p is a horrible resolution for productivity, which this laptop (a T series) is designed for. It's not meant to be a consumer, but rather a business laptop. The fact that there are 10 inch tablets out there that sport higher resolution screen should make one wonder. But hey, if you think that 768p is enough for you, then that's your problem. The rest of us need decent resolutions to enhance our productivity, not some shitty low resolution designed for cheap consumer laptops.

[n-ster]

Yea 768p is not that great.... but did you guys notice THE FREAKING PRICE???????? you want higher res, pay for it DUHHH

[CounterZeus]

Originally Posted by Andrei23

Insults over the internet always get me. On topic, I find it surreal that people are defending 768p on.... a tech site. That is depressing. The truth is 768p is a horrible resolution for productivity, which this laptop (a T series) is designed for. It's not meant to be a consumer, but rather a business laptop. The fact that there are 10 inch tablets out there that sport higher resolution screen should make one wonder. But hey, if you think that 768p is enough for you, then that's your problem. The rest of us need decent resolutions to enhance our productivity, not some shitty low resolution designed for cheap consumer laptops.

A 14" is not even a screen size where you can productively work on, so it makes no sense to put a high resolution screen in it. Half of the things would be almost unreadable or workable.

[devguy]

My view on resolutions/screen size for 16x9 screens:
MINIMUM:
7" - 1024x600
10.1/11.1/12.1" - 1366x768
13.3/14.1/15.6" - 1600x900
>15.6" - 1920x1080

But as mentioned, this is a cheaper "Ultrabook", so don't expect such high-end features at this combo of price and thickness.

[Completely Bonkers]

This CRAP y768 screen is just a bait and switch to the "true" X1 Carbon Ultrabook which offers a much better 1600 x 900

1366 x 768 is SO 2009 Atom netbook

[n-ster]

2009 atom netbook is 1024x600

[Completely Bonkers]

Not the ones I bought. (SONY)

[n-ster]

oh you mean those super expensive ones... probably costs a lot more than the standard netbook... everyone wants a better screen etc, but you have to pay for it, don't expect the cheapest entry-level 3rd gen ultrabook to have a better than standard screen

[Fourstaff]

Where should I start?

Originally Posted by Andrei23

On topic, I find it surreal that people are defending 768p on.... a tech site. That is depressing.

There is nothing wrong with 768p on 14inch and below. Not everyone have superman eyes capable of unlimited resolution, and as long as Microsoft does not have a native upscaling tool I don't think small icons and words will be appreciated by the elder crowd. I dare to go further and claim that non-widescreens are more productive than widescreens. At least there are laptops (even within T series) which have high resolution screens you so covet. Not many 16:10 laptop out there, and I don't bitch about it like a retard, because I know if its essential for my work I will be able to find one.

Originally Posted by Andrei23

The truth is 768p is a horrible resolution for productivity, which this laptop (a T series) is designed for. It's not meant to be a consumer, but rather a business laptop.

The truth? What truth? Do you have studies to back it up, or just anecdotal evidence seen by your eyes? I can equally claim that 768p for 14" is the sweet spot for productivity from my experience seeing hundreds of people working in my university's library, but I do not because I don't have any evidence to back it up, nor would it be representative of the business community.

Before I escalate our squabble, I would like to clarify that in my opinion the main difference between a consumer laptop and a business laptop is the difference between a tough well build laptop to survive daily use and the security features (among others) which come with it compared to a disposable consumer one. If you do not agree with my definition, we can fix it somewhere, shoot me a PM.

The difference between a consumer laptop and a business laptop has been blurred over the past few years. This is especially true for the low end business laptops where the build quality is no different from consumer ones, like Dell Vostro and HP Probook. Doubtless ThinkPads are also dragged into this game.

Originally Posted by Andrei23

The fact that there are 10 inch tablets out there that sport higher resolution screen should make one wonder.

The OS of the tablet in question is optimised for high resolution, I am waiting for Microsoft to optimise their OS to accommodate high res screens before I start complaining. Also, its currently significantly more expensive to create a screen with a higher resolution than one with a lower resolution, and as long as the low res fabs are still in good working condition I don't think there will be a change anytime soon. The recession did not help to speed up the retooling schedule.

Originally Posted by Andrei23

But hey, if you think that 768p is enough for you, then that's your problem.

When my old HP died I briefly used a Sony Vaio S 13.3" 1080p (borrowed from a friend). My productivity did not increase significantly, so you can say I am optimised for 768 screens.

Originally Posted by Andrei23

The rest of us need decent resolutions to enhance our productivity, not some shitty low resolution designed for cheap consumer laptops.

Then get the other ThinkPads, this is not the only ThinkPad out there. The screen resolution for ThinkPads T series go all the way to 1600x900, and if that is not enough you can opt to get the W Series laptops for even higher resolution. Failing that, MacBook Retina Display goes all the way to 2880x1800. Is it necessarily to scream loudly a product is crap because its not designed with you in mind? If so, then you are no better than the clueless idiots. If not, then why did you not think about others before you write "crap crap crap" without justifying?

Originally Posted by n-ster

Yea 768p is not that great.... but did you guys notice THE FREAKING PRICE???????? you want higher res, pay for it DUHHH

The great shame of TPU users: we (me included) don't read before posting.

Originally Posted by Completely Bonkers

This CRAP y768 screen is just a bait and switch to the "true" X1 Carbon Ultrabook which offers a much better 1600 x 900

1366 x 768 is SO 2009 Atom netbook

Don't think you can mistake a Carbon X1 with this one, they don't really look the same to begin with (other than the "ThinkPad look"). Also, how can you not differentiate between two products where one is almost 2x the price of the other one?

Unfortunately, 1366x768 became the standard for 14" laptops since 2009 while you were sleeping.

[Melvis]

bla bla bla bla when is the Thinkpad X131e coming?

[1c3d0g]

You must think very highly of yourself, Fourstaff, by belittling people online with your useless words. I'm a lot less kind in real life to people such as yourself, so I'll be short and polite online in saying that you can keep using your shitty 768p resolution while the rest of us use a higher, superior resolution to our liking. And it doesn't matter what you think, because this industry is moving forward with better displays, whether you like it or not.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by 1c3d0g

You must think very highly of yourself, Fourstaff, by belittling people online with your useless words.

I don't think highly of myself, everything I say I specifically mark it with "I think" or equivalents unless I can back it up with evidence. If you still feel insulted with the way I speak perhaps we can arrange some English lessons to fix the way I converse through the internet.

Originally Posted by 1c3d0g

I'm a lot less kind in real life to people such as yourself, so I'll be short and polite online in saying that you can keep using your shitty 768p resolution while the rest of us use a higher, superior resolution to our liking.

This is my original point, 768p is a very usable resolution at a very nice price even if you don't like it. I got angry because Andrei23 just spewed shit out of his entitled mouth without provocation and justification. This is, to me, an insult to the TPU's community, because I believe TPU is above petty mudslinging and useless posting which is so prevalent in other websites. And I generally don't get angry, this is probably my 2nd time in 4000+ posts that I deliberately set out to insult someone. My apologies for being a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by 1c3d0g

And it doesn't matter what you think, because this industry is moving forward with better displays, whether you like it or not.

Indeed the industry is moving forward with better displays, Macbook's Retina Display is one of the first. However, Microsoft the current state of affairs is incapable of elegantly supporting screens with higher display (we have gone through this, a simple search will lead you to many fine examples), the only options for people with poor tired eyes is to use a screen with less dpi. I welcome progress, but I am not going to sacrifice a workable solution in the name of advancement.

Originally Posted by Melvis

bla bla bla bla when is the Thinkpad X131e coming?

September
http://www.lenovo.com/products/us/la...ies/x131e-amd/

[Frick]

Originally Posted by 1c3d0g

You must think very highly of yourself, Fourstaff, by belittling people online with your useless words. I'm a lot less kind in real life to people such as yourself, so I'll be short and polite online in saying that you can keep using your shitty 768p resolution while the rest of us use a higher, superior resolution to our liking. And it doesn't matter what you think, because this industry is moving forward with better displays, whether you like it or not.

Heh, it was the other people belittling if anything. He had lots of good points imo. How close do you have to sit to actually use 1920x1080 on a 14" laptop properly? Sure you can screw up the DPI but then the point of a larger work space is lost anyway.