Comments Locked

39 Comments

Back to Article

  • MTEK - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    So no USB 3.1? I thought Kaby Lake had native support.
  • MattMe - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    I had read previously that Kaby Lake was supposed to bring 3.1 support too. Not sure why it's taking so long to become standard.
  • ddriver - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    No thunderbolt either...
  • DanNeely - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    I've seen conflicting rumors but nothing official. It's possible it only does 3.1 gen 1 (aka the C port and alternate modes).
  • Flunk - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link

    I don't think there are any chipset changes, I think they just relabeled the Sky Lake chipsets.
  • HStewart - Wednesday, January 23, 2019 - link

    My xps 13 2in1 and xps 15 2in1 both have 3.1 support - and Thunderbolt 3 - this Lenovo issue - maybe Lenovo use existing chipset with new CPU's I always had issues with Lenovo's (except Thinkpad) but never had issues with Dell.
  • dsraa - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    Meh....I'm not impressed.....it looks and feels similar to the rest of the line, and that screen.....13.9? Where did they get that format size??
  • retrospooty - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    If you take the Yoga 900, shrink the bezels, you can fit a larger screen. The device got slightly smaller while the screen got larger. What is to complaint about? More importantly, is there a better convertible? Not IMO.
  • emn13 - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    1.38kg sounds a little heavy, if you ask me. But the extra size is nice, and that's got to come from somewhere.
  • TheTurboFool - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    What's your complaint? That's not a ratio, just a screen size. There's no reason screen sizes have to be any precise figure.
  • lilmoe - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    Nice machine, but too much wasted vertical space. Can't they just ditch 16:p already??? This is a convertible, 16:10 or 3:2 should be standard.
  • lilmoe - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    16:9***
  • RazrLeaf - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    As a convertible that is primarily a laptop, I think that 16:9 is quite ideal. If it was meant to be primarily a tablet, I too would support something squarer.
  • lilmoe - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    I disagree. I don't believe 16:9 is ideal even for a conventional laptop. Provided the screen width doesn't change, the extra horizontal screen real estate you get with 16:10 or 3:2 wont hurt the total area you get watching a movie, but it provides much more room for productivity tasks. When used in tablet mode (as intended by the Yoga series), 16:9 in both portrait and landscape orientation is unwieldy and just feels wrong.
  • retrospooty - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    I agree, personally I dont want 16:9 in a laptop, 16:10 was decent...but it is just a preference. Some like it.
  • hybrid2d4x4 - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    Agree with lilmoe, I don't think 16x9 is good for anything other than watching videos, and is ok for games. Anything productivity-related or even web browsing and file management, something like 3:2 or even 16:10 is noticeably better IMO.
  • Klug4Pres - Saturday, September 3, 2016 - link

    Absolutely. These 360-degree hinge devices would be great in 3:2 or 4:3. I'm baffled that we haven't seen anything except the pointless and dreadful 16:9.
  • MamiyaOtaru - Wednesday, September 7, 2016 - link

    Got an old Pentium M laptop with 5:4. Man I miss that aspect ration. 4:3 would be acceptable too :(
  • MamiyaOtaru - Wednesday, September 7, 2016 - link

    someone needs to being those back and market it as 'tallscreen' or something
  • Flunk - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link

    I think the future is probably "ultra shortscreen". take a look at some of those ridiculous monitors they're bringing out.
  • mkozakewich - Tuesday, September 6, 2016 - link

    IF manufacturers decided to keep the exact number of pixels when moving from 16:10 to 16:9, then all those arguments about things like video size would be valid.
    There's literally no difference between a 16:9 video on a screen of 16:9 or 16:10, though. They have the exact same pixel count across. All 16:9 means is you don't get as many pixels, and that's really annoying to a lot of people.
  • cocochanel - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    Why would anyone need a 4k display only 14 inches in size ? Can anyone tell me ? What can you use it for ? The other day I was in a BestBuy store looking at a Surface Book. Because of the high resolution display, one can hardly see the fonts.
  • retrospooty - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    Windows resolution scaling sucks, especially with ultra high res, so it isnt very useful when used as a standard laptop... However, when used as a tablet, you tend to hold it alot closer. That res is good if you have good eyes and want a perfectly clear picture... However, again, windows sucks as a tablet, so I dont know... If someone really needed a convertible one device fits all, like this or a surface, this is a great product though.
  • Black Obsidian - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    4K is also a lot more flexible than the previous 3200x1800, in that it can do 2:1 scaling for an apparent 1920x1080 for desktop work--about the highest resolution you'd want in that scenario, IMO, but still do native 4K for applications/media that would benefit.
  • MattCoz - Sunday, September 4, 2016 - link

    Yeah, anything other than 2:1 scaling can look pretty bad with thin lines getting blurred, so this is great.
  • Ej24 - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link

    If only there was some resolution that was 16:9 and also 1/2 of 3200x1800...

    Seriously though, 16:9 is only ok for phones. Anywhere else we need 16:10 or taller. Trying to write or read long documents on 16:9 is terrible. Between the task bar and the ribbon on word it leaves you with about 3 inches of vertical space and 12 inches of horizontal.
  • Tams80 - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    Windows doesn't suck as a tablet other than at scaling.
  • retrospooty - Saturday, September 3, 2016 - link

    I suppose its a matter of opinion, but I would say it's several stages beyond suck. I would also say the market agrees, as there really arent any that sell well.
  • nikon133 - Monday, September 5, 2016 - link

    It is not as bad as it used to be. I'm using Surface Pro 4 a lot these days, at default scaling... I think it is 200%? So far, only Photoshop CS5 looks horrendous, as it doesn't accept scaling at all... but CS5 is a few years old already, so hopefully new Photoshop scales better? Everything else I'm using does OK. Old programs GUI gets that blurry look, but it is at least usable. Newer programs and apps scale fine.

    But yeah, definitely space for improvements. But I think it will be more down to developers updating their software and following modern guidelines, than MS themselves.
  • HStewart - Wednesday, January 23, 2019 - link

    Using the following link you can fix scaling on CS5, I don't care for new subscription Photoshops and sticking to CS5

    Just search for "Adobe App Scaling on High DPI Displays (FIX)"
  • mkozakewich - Tuesday, September 6, 2016 - link

    Sounds like you saw something configured poorly. If the fonts were too small, it's because they were silly and didn't set the scaling right.
  • Lolimaster - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    16:9 for a computer, so worthless. 3:2 is the way to go or at minimum 16:10.
  • Vlad_Da_Great - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    Are you kidding me? 13.9" 4K (3840 x 2160) vs 13.3" Glossy IPS ​16:9 QHD+ (3200x1800) LED in 15W range and slightly thinner. I can definitely see those chips very soon kicking ARM minions out of the phone sockets.
  • Achaios - Saturday, September 3, 2016 - link

    When it comes to laptops, there's only one thing that matters for me:

    SCREEN REAL ESTATE

    The bigger the screen, the better. I bought a new Skylake based Lenovo laptop only 15 days ago, and it came with 17.3'' screen. This, alongwith a CPU with strong Single-Core performance, are my only major concerns when it comes to buying a laptop.

    I'd never buy this specific Lenovo laptop, simply b/c its screen is waaaayyyy too small for my taste.
  • Cliff34 - Saturday, September 3, 2016 - link

    If you like big screen laptops, then you must like your laptop big and heavy. My colleague used to have a xps w 17 inch. Boy that was a big laptop.

    I guess everyone looks for diff things. For me, it is the portability and good battery life. Not that I'm incline for QHD (more pricey, use more battery) though!
  • MattCoz - Sunday, September 4, 2016 - link

    And I'd never buy the laptop you bought because its waaaayyyy too big for my taste. Good thing there's choices for those with different tastes.
  • Miro90 - Sunday, September 4, 2016 - link

    You forgot that the updated yoga 900 have core i7 6560 with iris 540 Lpddr3 1866 and Nvme ssd samsung pm951.
  • kiwilightweight - Wednesday, September 7, 2016 - link

    Of course the obvious question: anybody running Linux on it yet?
  • sallgeud - Thursday, September 8, 2016 - link

    It's too bad Clementine Orange is gone. It almost directly matches our company colors. We absolutely loved having laptops that matched. It's also the best looking color. Good news is, the color choice is my only complaint.

    Their current charging port is stupid in the existing yoga's. The two listed have entirely different adapters. If this one support 100% standard usbc charging, that's a HUGE victory for us. Most of our office phones are USBC, making power for this ubiquitous.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now