Framework is a great concept but they will die due to poor execution. If I hadn't already recently bought a Framework (and knew what I do now about them) I would've held out for one of these new Lenovos. I don't think Framework can compete if one of the established players joins the game.
I've never had an issue with 60hz. 30hz is unusable but 60hz has always been good enough for me; the Sega Genesis and SNES had 60hz and that's always been good enough for me.
> Is there any other area where you would tolerate 35 year-old performance as "good enough"?
Yeah. Speakers, printers, lightbulbs, garage doors, etc., etc.
I can tell the difference between 60 Hz and higher rates, but I think that most people could not care less. You don't buy a Thinkpad to game on, the most intense workout the display is liable to get is scrolling down a page.
Even 50hz is fine. I'd go so far as to say, barring any medical or sensitivity issue, if any person prioritizes a 120hz screen they are a victim to habit or marketing.
It adds zero value to the experience, and you're just looking for things to be annoyed by / brag about.
Modern displays are already cutting edge. They have improved in every way that's meaningful in the last 35 years. Refresh rate is just not meaningful enough. "35 year old performance" it most certainly is not. You just seem hellbent on using this arbitrary (to most people) benchmark as a filter.
FYI, I run my 17 pro almost exclusively on power saving mode to cap frame rates because the battery life extending by 30 mins is more infinitely more valuable than frame rate over 50. I've capped my fancy monitor's frame rate to 60 so it matches my macbook air. And it's all fine in this world, nothing here is "one notch above unusable".
"Even 4gb of memory is fine", "even 720p is fine", "even 2ghz CPU is fine", "even a membrane keyboard is fine", "even USB 2.0 is fine", "even 2 hours battery life is fine"...
Yeah it's all "fine". If these were the specs of the only laptop available to me then yeah it would be "fine". I could get things done. One or more of those things are deal-breakers for an awful lot of people.
For me, a rubbish display is a deal-breaker. I can't accept that they would compromise in this aspect, presumably to save a few bucks.
It's likely as difficult for me to understand how you could possibly prefer battery life over refresh rates as it is for you to do the opposite. And I'm not even talking crazy refresh rates here, 120hz or even 90hz at a minimum.
Would you buy a high-end laptop with 15 minute battery life? I'm not buying a new laptop with a 60hz display.
You're entitled to your preferences. In my opinion:
Functional:
- battery life
- screen resolution (binary, <2k and >2k for laptops), brightness (binary: works in the sun or not), viewing angles (binary: good enough vs not), color (binary, good enough vs not) etc
- connectivity options
- ram
- build quality
etc etc
Aesthetic:
- color
- finish
- refresh rate
- OS theming, animations and all that
- material
When you say "why won't they do 120hz?" I hear "Why won't they release a magenta colored device". That's fundamentally different than "why won't they add usb c"
I don't think there's any value in 120hz. Nearly all content I consume is in 30-60 fps anyway. I don't need to see marginally smoother os animatations lol and thats nearly all 120hz is good for.
PS Gamers might actually functionally need high refresh rates. I'm not in that space, but I recognise that for some specializations it might be absolutely deal-breaker.
I understand it not being a priority for a lot of people but it's odd to me that there appears to be resistance to it. It is very easy for you to reduce the refresh rate if you need to maximise battery life, but I have no option to increase it beyond what the hardware supports.
I wonder how much reduction we could see in eye strain, nausea, fatigue and headaches if higher refresh rates were normalised.
I remember one time showing a non-techy person the difference between a "Pro Motion" iPad Pro vs a lower spec iPad. They probably had no idea what refresh rates were before I took a moment to scroll up and down in the web browser for about 5 seconds side-by-side. They had their "ohhhhh" moment and bought the much more expensive Pro on that basis alone.
These are business class laptops, there's no dedicated GPU. Where are you're going to utilize this high refresh rate? I'm pretty sure 99% of the time the integrated graphics would be working hard to churn out 120 frames of static views.
I bet the vast majority of people would be perfectly happy to have 60hz display, longer battery life, and save a few bucks at the same time.
Funny bonus anecdote: I reinstall my OS in december, only a few weeks ago did I realize it wasn't set to 144hz but 60hz, since I was busy with work since and didn't play any games I did not even realize.
> "Even 4gb of memory is fine", "even 720p is fine", "even 2ghz CPU is fine", "even a membrane keyboard is fine", "even USB 2.0 is fine", "even 2 hours battery life is fine"...
No these things aren't. 60 hz is fine though. What does it matter that it's "old"? It matters whether it's functional.
I for one prefer battery life over refresh frequency and will always choose 60 hz when available.
My toilet seems to work fine, and I think it's 35 years old.
But in general I agree, just with different variables. I'm ok with 60hz but I won't use a screen less than 4K. Part of the reason I bought the ThinkPad is because it was one of the few I could find at a reasonable price that had a 4K screen.
No. I guess everyone has different levels of sensitivity to refresh rates. It is immediately noticeable and very distracting to me when using a 60hz display.
It's not acceptable on a high-end laptop nowadays (120hz minimum). Imagine the reduction in headaches, fatigue and nausea if we stopped tolerating this penny-pinching.
This disgusting lie needs to end.
reply