Lenovo announces their first Windows 8 tablet

As Microsoft has a party to celebrate Windows 8 reaching the 'shipping' milestone, the tablet announcements are starting to roll in. Lenovo is first out of the gate, announcing it's new 10" slate entitled the "ThinkPad Tablet 2."

There's no ARM here, with the ThinkPad 2 featuring an Intel Atom Processor from the next generation range and Windows 8 Professional will come pre-installed. The device sports a 1,366 x 768 HD IPS display, optional 3G / 4G (LTE on AT&T) radio, NFC, Micro-HDMI out and is just 9.8 mm thick and weighs less than 600 grams. It also has a front and rear facing camera, dual noise cancelling microphones and 'wireless video streaming' (which Lenovo hasn't been clear about yet). Oh, and it comes with a digital ink-pen too, if that's your style.

Lenovo says the ThinkPad 2 will become available as Windows 8 is released to the public in October, and that the keyboard and dock are an optional add-on for the device. so no solid dates available for getting your hands on this device just yet.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Square CEO hints at Windows Phone app plans

Next Story

Minecraft makes a ton of money for Mojang

71 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

deadonthefloor said,
Hey if it gets to market before Surface Pro, it has a shot.

They are planning to release it at the same time as Windows 8, so it will be competing with the RT Surface for months before the Surface Pro is released.

I use an Asus eee slate with windows 8 on it at the moment. My slate has a lower power core i5. The experience is just brilliant and all my friends are amazed by it. The kicker is, I was really hanging out for the Intel version of the MS Surface slate, but after using my current slate one thing has really shown to be important and one thing that could damage the surface experience. My slate does not have 3G/4G capability only wifi. This is really crippling when I take it out of home as my workplace does not let us use the wifi for personal use.
I have found that the big weakness is that I need that ability, and a lot of the Metro experience requires an internet connection. I hope the address this before releasing the product, as it was not in the original specs

daniel_rh said,

It could be at least a i3, isn't it better?


The i3 processor consumes more power and generates more heat than the Atom. Consider a TDP of as low as 3.5W on an Atom vs the lowest of 18W on the i3.

jasonon said,
ah think pad! how original!

Well, they bought the name along from IBM, so why not? Makes sense, given its got some name recognition...

Everyone seems to care about the screen res so much, what about the big factor here? Battery life anyone? I can live with a lower res screen if I can get more hours out of it compared to a higher res version. I think that's a reasonable trade off at this point.

GP007 said,
Everyone seems to care about the screen res so much, what about the big factor here? Battery life anyone? I can live with a lower res screen if I can get more hours out of it compared to a higher res version. I think that's a reasonable trade off at this point.

That's right, having a higher res screen = more electrons needed to stimulate the display = more battery drain = heavier = bigger, the list goes on. This is what happened with the iPad 3. Instead of actually being able to cut down on the size and weight, it actually increased (or stayed roughly the same) because instead of focusing on what these things that are necessary, they diverted their money to fitting in a denser screen. Subsequently they had to re-engineer the entire set up to fit in a massive battery; to power the new screen.

So all in all, now we have manufacturers building devices, like Apple, to suit what consumers "want" because it looks good on TV ads. So next time people rant about the resolution being sub-par just remind them that battery technology isn't advancing any more so wherever you see (high resolution screen) or brighter screen, just remember that its all at a cost of battery life.

Just thought I'd get that out there.

GP007 said,
Everyone seems to care about the screen res so much, what about the big factor here? Battery life anyone? I can live with a lower res screen if I can get more hours out of it compared to a higher res version. I think that's a reasonable trade off at this point.

Completely agree. And, for games, I'd rather see them run at the lower resolution but have a higher, smoother, frame-rate with more effects. How many console games were made for 720p or lower, and are simply upscaled to 1080p?

jorel009 said,
needs an amd apu...fail.

Which one, though? I've seen C-, E-, and A-series APUs (don't think Bulldozer would be appropriate)...

Surface Pro will have a 1920x1080p HD resolution. If tablet makers want to compete with Microsoft's offering, they must use a resolution that matches what MS is selling, specially if they are selling a tablet with Windows 8 Pro.

A340600 said,
Surface Pro will have a 1920x1080p HD resolution. If tablet makers want to compete with Microsoft's offering, they must use a resolution that matches what MS is selling, specially if they are selling a tablet with Windows 8 Pro.

Hmm, although I would agree, people know nothing about res. They would look for the cheapest or most attractive option of them all. At least Surface wins on the latter one.

A340600 said,
Surface Pro will have a 1920x1080p HD resolution. If tablet makers want to compete with Microsoft's offering, they must use a resolution that matches what MS is selling, specially if they are selling a tablet with Windows 8 Pro.

I'd say this all depends on the market. Take the business market, which Lenovo is targeting with their ThinkPad products, the buyers know quite a bit more about technology than the general consumer. They know that higher resolution comes at the cost of battery life, and might think that sacrificing battery life for more pixels might not be worth it for productivity use.

It should also be noted that the Surface Pro isn't being sold through normal outlets, only through Microsoft Stores (please correct me if I am wrong). The general consumer might not go there to buy their product, and as such the Surface might not be such a direct competitor for the tablets of other companies.

Lamp Post said,

I'd say this all depends on the market. Take the business market, which Lenovo is targeting with their ThinkPad products, the buyers know quite a bit more about technology than the general consumer. They know that higher resolution comes at the cost of battery life, and might think that sacrificing battery life for more pixels might not be worth it for productivity use.

It should also be noted that the Surface Pro isn't being sold through normal outlets, only through Microsoft Stores (please correct me if I am wrong). The general consumer might not go there to buy their product, and as such the Surface might not be such a direct competitor for the tablets of other companies.

Yeah I think only Microsoft (online and at their stores) will sell Surface tablets.

And you have a point there about Lenovo targeting business users and they might place battery life above resolution. I keep forgetting that Lenovo isn't really a consumer company.

Jose_49 said,

Hmm, although I would agree, people know nothing about res. They would look for the cheapest or most attractive option of them all. At least Surface wins on the latter one.

Maybe with Apple retina displays, Regular Joe are starting to pay attention to screen resolution? I do agree that they care more about price and looks first though.

Hell, the new Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 only sports 1280x800 non IPS, non Super Amoled display

Yet no one is makes fuss about it...and not forget that iPad 2 has 1024x768 and quite a best seller

1366x768 on 10 inch tablet should be ok...on 14" or 15" device it is unacceptable by today's standard

Eins.MY said,
1366x768 on 10 inch tablet should be ok...on 14" or 15" device it is unacceptable by today's standard
I dunno. My HP Pavilion G6 has a 15.6" 1366x768 display, and its just fine for normal use. Granted, I'm far more likely to do things full-screen than I am my desktop computer (24" 1920x1200), but that's pretty much the norm for Windows 8.

Again, this brings me back to my question above - how many people actually need high-res? Its nice and all, but I'm still a little iffy on actual benefits for consumers other than bragging rights.

Sam not Spam said,

Again, this brings me back to my question above - how many people actually need high-res? Its nice and all, but I'm still a little iffy on actual benefits for consumers other than bragging rights.

Once you go high res, you never go back.

THolman said,

Once you go high res, you never go back.


I had an Apple Cinema Display at my old jobs. I've got a 24" Samsung (1920x1200) for my desktop computer, and my laptop is 1366x768. I've been at HD resolutions since 2001, and needed it for work to multitask and work efficiently with multiple windows (OSX and Windows). I've also needed the resolution and size to be able to work at a good level of detail (publishing), both for layout and image editing. I've seen high-res displays, and am not convinced of the their worth on mobile for general consumer use.

Now, if we talk games? Yes, there I'll agree, provided the framerate is sufficiently high (high FPS is more important to me than high resolution). If I can't get 30+ fps in a game, I start turning down settings until I can (I'd prefer ~60, and if I get to 90fps+, then I start turning resolution and details up). But even then, on such a small screen, what's the point? I'd rather have that resolution on a larger display (24" or bigger, like on a moderate to large HDTV) where its easier to appreciate all the details.

The screen resolution is set by Microsoft, so don't expect it to change much. Also, how many of you need high res? I'd rather have the modest resolution than having to waste battery life and processing power in high DPI. Hoe much more powerful and longer lasting would the iPad 3 be if there was no Retina?

I am curious about the Atom CPU. While I'm used to equating it with trash, AMD's new low power CPUs are decent (competition hopefully got Intel to improve), and the Metro environment seems lightweight. Maybe it'll be okay for consumption devices and light gaming (at least compared to the desktop). I definitely want one for my PDF and eBook collection, for instance. Plus, even my phone does Youtube decently...

Sam not Spam said,
The screen resolution is set by Microsoft, so don't expect it to change much. Also, how many of you need high res? I'd rather have the modest resolution than having to waste battery life and processing power in high DPI. Hoe much more powerful and longer lasting would the iPad 3 be if there was no Retina?

Once you HAVE high res, it becomes VERY hard to downgrade (impossible, for me). Which means there are already millions of iPad 3 owners that will NEVER own a tablet with a lesser resolution.

The iPad is mainly a media consumption tool, though. It has vastly different user needs than a full-fledged Windows 8 machine, which would be used mainly for content creation - which means you'll need a keyboard.

Basically these new "tablets" they're making are laptops with a touchscreen and a keyboard you'll have to buy separately. Oh, and the keyboards are probably going to be $99+. And you'll need a mouse.

Jahooba said,

Once you HAVE high res, it becomes VERY hard to downgrade (impossible, for me). Which means there are already millions of iPad 3 owners that will NEVER own a tablet with a lesser resolution.

The iPad is mainly a media consumption tool, though. It has vastly different user needs than a full-fledged Windows 8 machine, which would be used mainly for content creation - which means you'll need a keyboard.

Basically these new "tablets" they're making are laptops with a touchscreen and a keyboard you'll have to buy separately. Oh, and the keyboards are probably going to be $99+. And you'll need a mouse.


impossible. first world problems?
Im used to using high resolutions, but its complete and utter nonsense that its such a tremendous difference.
As said, higher resolutions means more CPU wasting and most importantly, wasting battery life for such a tiny modest increase. That battery power could be put to better use IMHO.

Jahooba said,

Once you HAVE high res, it becomes VERY hard to downgrade (impossible, for me). Which means there are already millions of iPad 3 owners that will NEVER own a tablet with a lesser resolution.

The iPad is mainly a media consumption tool, though. It has vastly different user needs than a full-fledged Windows 8 machine, which would be used mainly for content creation - which means you'll need a keyboard.

Basically these new "tablets" they're making are laptops with a touchscreen and a keyboard you'll have to buy separately. Oh, and the keyboards are probably going to be $99+. And you'll need a mouse.


To be honest, I think these will be bought as media consumption devices. Certainly, there's not enough power in it to be considered worthwhile for content creation using Win32 apps. Atom, 2g RAM, and only 64g of storage is pretty pitiful for that.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets...ad-tablet-2-with-windows-8/

But, for consumption? I think this would be great. I would not consider any tablet to be useful for content creation unless its got a better CPU, at least twice as much RAM, is running the 64bit version of Windows, and has more storage. It'll bring the price through the roof, though, and would likely kill battery life.

Note: when I think "content creation," I'm thinking multimedia, desktop publishing, video editing, graphics editing, etc. Not sure what you mean (MS Office? Programming?). Personally, I couldn't imagine running any of Adobe's products on just 2g of RAM >.<

itll probably compete with 10 inch android tablets for price which is why the specs arent as good as the surface will cost best part of a $1000 i think

I've seen Microsoft Surface, HP Slate 8 and Lenovo ThinkPad 2 already but what about other tablets so they've not release to public yet?

Are the surface tablets coming out in a PC style with different processor speeds or will there be a minimal recommended thing ?

Thought surface pro is going to be 1080p (unfconfirmed). Looks like Rt will be same res as this. Pity to both.

calimike said,
Stick to Microsoft Surface

Me too. However that that worries me about the Surface RT is that most likely will come with 1,366 x 768 resolution as well.

nMIK-3 said,

Me too. However that that worries me about the Surface RT is that most likely will come with 1,366 x 768 resolution as well.
That's what the official spec sheet available on MS website is saying, yes.

Anthonyd said,
That's what the official spec sheet available on MS website is saying, yes.

We do not know the exact resolution of neither Surface RT or PRO yet.

The official specs are only stating HD Screen for the RT and Full HD for the Pro.
HD means 720p minimum that means anything between 720p and less than 1080p.
Both 1366 x 768 and 1280 x 800 for example apply for the HD specs.
Full HD means 1920 x 1080 minimum.

nMIK-3 said,

We do not know the exact resolution of neither Surface RT or PRO yet.

The official specs are only stating HD Screen for the RT and Full HD for the Pro.
HD means 720p minimum that means anything between 720p and less than 1080p.
Both 1366 x 768 and 1280 x 800 for example apply for the HD specs.
Full HD means 1920 x 1080 minimum.

1920 x 1080 will be mint

nMIK-3 said,
....

either.

you can extrapolate based on the # of tiles shown on the Start Screen.
I would say the surface tablets will be close to this.

Phouchg said,
Dear Lenovo. That bumped edge on the left side. Why? Sincerely, F.

I was thinking the same thing. Maybe for ports which are too thick for the rest of chassis?

They way I see it, I should just get a Microsoft Surface. More hardware details about it would be nice, by the way (at least for the Win8Pro one).

Jose_49 said,

Stopped reading after this ^.

You got that far? I stopped reading after

Article

Intel Atom Processor

In all seriousness though, this is exactly why the Surface needs to exist...the OEM's are doing an absolutely horrid job at pushing boundaries and producing products that will make people actually want them (with the exception of Asus, who IMO has quite a few interesting devices coming out soon that will rival the Surface in specs/features).

AlterBridge86 said,

You got that far? I stopped reading after

In all seriousness though, this is exactly why the Surface needs to exist...the OEM's are doing an absolutely horrid job at pushing boundaries and producing products that will make people actually want them (with the exception of Asus, who IMO has quite a few interesting devices coming out soon that will rival the Surface in specs/features).

He made the comment before the updated article mentioned the CPU

I agree on the Surface part, though. To think Acer still manage to complain about Microsoft producing Surface XD

AlterBridge86 said,
In all seriousness though, this is exactly why the Surface needs to exist...the OEM's are doing an absolutely horrid job at pushing boundaries and producing products that will make people actually want them (with the exception of Asus, who IMO has quite a few interesting devices coming out soon that will rival the Surface in specs/features).

Agreed, MS is setting a standard with Surface, I only hope I can get one in NZ.

Jose_49 said,

Stopped reading after this ^.

Because you really need that high of a resolution on that small of a screen... /s

Most 15.6 laptops are that resolution. What makes you think you need higher?

AlterBridge86 said,

You got that far? I stopped reading after

In all seriousness though, this is exactly why the Surface needs to exist...the OEM's are doing an absolutely horrid job at pushing boundaries and producing products that will make people actually want them (with the exception of Asus, who IMO has quite a few interesting devices coming out soon that will rival the Surface in specs/features).

.
The article was updated?! And seriously... Atom?!

I still do not know why isn't there a SLV version of i3....

farmeunit said,

Because you really need that high of a resolution on that small of a screen... /s

Most 15.6 laptops are that resolution. What makes you think you need higher?


Once you taste something bigger than 1366 x 768 you WON'T GO BACK. Seriously...

Jose_49 said,

Once you taste something bigger than 1366 x 768 you WON'T GO BACK. Seriously...

Using 1920x1080 on my 15" laptop, I'd gladly go back to 900p, even 720. Need a magnifying glass to do anything on it, and high DPI settings make just about anything important look like garbage... pictures, web sites, interface...

shockz said,

Using 1920x1080 on my 15" laptop, I'd gladly go back to 900p, even 720. Need a magnifying glass to do anything on it, and high DPI settings make just about anything important look like garbage... pictures, web sites, interface...


Er, you might want to have a vision check. I am using 1080p on my 15.6" laptop with default DPI settings and no magnifying glass or zoom. I am replying to this post just fine. I am surfing the web just fine. And 1080p anime looks crisper than fresh Caesar salad.

billyea said,

Er, you might want to have a vision check. I am using 1080p on my 15.6" laptop with default DPI settings and no magnifying glass or zoom. I am replying to this post just fine. I am surfing the web just fine. And 1080p anime looks crisper than fresh Caesar salad.

Just ignore them, they just flaunting specs and words around to moan and complain.
its a perfectly fine resolution that you almost have to push the device into your face to see the pixels... any higher on a 10" is just absolute nonsense considering the usual distance from the device when operating it.

AlterBridge86 said,

In all seriousness though, this is exactly why the Surface needs to exist...the OEM's are doing an absolutely horrid job at pushing boundaries and producing products that will make people actually want them (with the exception of Asus, who IMO has quite a few interesting devices coming out soon that will rival the Surface in specs/features).

No wonder about ASUS producing products that are interesting compared to the Surface. They are the ones who actually produce the Surface itselt! Microsoft just designed it and put their logo on it. It's similar to Google's Nexus 7, only that Microsoft doesn't advertise the fact that ASUS also builds their tablet.

superconductive said,
The Atom processor is by far the dealbreaker.

superconductive said,
The Atom processor is by far the dealbreaker.

Why? Do you even know anything about them or does the non-four cores scare you off? The Atom outperforms any ARM processor that your finding in any tablet on the market. You can take a quad core ARM processor and put it up against a single core Atom processor and it will win. It has relatively low power consumption and it performs very well. So instead of commenting on something you clearly have absolutely knowledge just be happy that us consumers have a choice.

superconductive said,
The Atom processor is by far the dealbreaker.

Its a tablet not PC ...... you want Quad Core i7 in a tablet ?

billyea said,
Ah, the Thinkpad logo in the corner will probably distract me a bit too much.

I agree. They could have definitely done with out it.

Danny Camilo said,

I agree. They could have definitely done with out it.

They probably dont want a lawsuit from apple...who believes no one else should be in the market.

Beyond Godlike said,

They probably dont want a lawsuit from apple...who believes no one else should be in the market.


Hey, better don't knock it. ThinkPad

billyea said,
Ah, the Thinkpad logo in the corner will probably distract me a bit too much.

Agreed. The front should be clean and free from logos. Use the back for your logo if you must, perhaps by engaving it into whatever the back is made of. Like the iPad.