Thinkpads Forum

The main objective here was to compile a size comparison of notebooks that are feasible for at least light computing (web surfing, word processing).



Why didn't you include X notebook?
I tried to limit the list to business class* sub-notebook and ultraportable models. I did not include netbooks** or mini-notebooks because these are a different class. I did not include iterations that did not result in a form factor change. I did not include machines with processors older than P3 because I feel they aren't viable for normal use today. If you feel I missed an exceptional model, mention it in the thread and I'll add it to the chart.

Why did you include Y notebook?
*The Vaio X505 was included despite not being a business class model because its unrivaled in size and style.
**The Eee PC was included because its ubiquitous with the emerging netbook class and has gained a lot of popularity.
The Latitude E4300 was included because of the comparison to the X300 and X200.

Your dimensions are off!
I tried to take the dimensions from the manufacturer's website whenever possible. Some of the models had varying thickness, I chose the largest thickness, because I believe it represents the size the best.

Your volume is inaccurate! WTF is dm3?
The volume is not intended to be an accurate volume but a factor to compare the overall dimensions of the notebooks. dm3 means decimeters cubed. 0.1m = 1dm = 10cm = 100mm. It was the most rational unit of measurement to use. It is nearly normalized with the smallest notebook nearing 1.

Not on weights
Weights shown are the lightest configurations. When possible this included the lightest battery option and without optical drive when that was an option.

Download the excel file.

A few oberservations:

1. The Armada M300 and Vaio X505 achieved their thinness by pushing the battery to the back separate from the body of the laptop. Similarly, the MBA battery isn't user replaceable. While many notebooks put the battery to the rear of the laptop, its usually integrated into the body

2. The X300 and the E4300 both have optical drives and larger screens yet still beat out other "sub-notebooks". The E4300 features a full fledged processor! Its worth noting that the T4X series are approximately 26mm thin (I <3 my T43).

3. Two of the standouts are the S30 and X505, but they're both very rare. The X505 still fetches nearly $1k on ebay.

4. I'll be hanging onto my M300 until I come across a X505.

http://store.shopfujitsu.com/fpc/Ecomme ... eries=U810

So how small do you want to go? I'm pretty sure there are even smaller ones.

You may want to add another rarity: 240Z which has the same guts as 240X, but XGA resolution on the same tiny 10.4" size LCD...an incredibly interesting machine, and very difficult to find.

Very noble effort, you are to be commended, seriously.

Personally, I'd add the top CPU speed for every machine involved, but this is your game, by all means.

Keep up the excellence.

@aaa
Like I said, I was sticking to subnotebooks and ultraportables. Thats more of a UMPC (or as they call it, mini-notebook). Smaller and you get a less friendly keyboard and display.

@ajkula66
I'll update the max rez for the 240Z.

ajkula66 wrote:Personally, I'd add the top CPU speed for every machine involved

i agree, it would certainly keep the results in perspective.

pretty neat how the chosen unit of measure practically normalized your data set!

Added processor columns.

Nice effort ... is the sony TZ series too pricey for this list?

0.1m = 1dm = 10cm = 100m

Small correction:
0.1m = 1dm = 10cm = 100mm

I would take out the Asus Eees, whose display resolutions are even worse than XGA. But please add the Toshiba R500, the Sharp MM20, the HP 2133 Mini-Note and the HP 2510p, and the Dell Latitude X1.

sparta.rising wrote:Where is the weight?
I didn't include this specification because it isn't that important to me. I'd rather have a solid machine than a flimsy piece of plastic.

The 570E that I owned was pretty flimsy. It's so big that it should be removed from your table anyway.

I found varied results for the thickness of the MM20, if anyone knows for certain, let me know. I went with the thickness measurement (Sharp's specified .62in seemed exaggerated)

Thanks for the R500 mention, I wanted to include the R100 but couldn't remember the model number.

Like I said, I'm not included mini-notebooks. That HP seems like its on the cusp, but they just don't seem ergonic, watching people use these is painful.

sparta.rising wrote:Thanks for the R500 mention, I wanted to include the R100 but couldn't remember the model number.

I had an R100 for several months and it remains the lightest laptop I've ever owned (2.38 lb). It's very flimsy though, and its display looked horribly washed out. You should change its speed to "1100" because some models have 1.1GHz Pentium M. You may also need to change the resolution of the Dell E4300 to WXGA. I don't think it will have WXGA+.

sparta.rising wrote:Like I said, I'm not included mini-notebooks.

Then how come the Asus Eee is included? BTW, dynamism.com has many exotic ultraportable laptops that you should consider adding to the list.

If this information is only for you, then leaving off the weight is OK. But if you are trying to be at all helpful then I think you should include it.

Also, manufacturer's specs while they usually careful not to lie, are often somewhat misleading. For instance if the notebook is wedge shaped they will give the thickness at the thin end, while we who have to carry it around are more interested in the thick end as that is what we have to provide room for.

I agree with others that some indication of performance would be nice, and also current cost, getting that may be more work than you would want to go into.

Anyway, thanks for doing it at all.

There is an indication of performance already there, the processor and processor speed. Current cost varies too greatly and changes quickly to include. I think most people have a general idea of what those models cost.

Yes they are deceptive, for most of the models I checked multiple sites, and when a range was given, I chose the thickest, as I said in the first post. If you think weight is important, feel free to message me with the weights. But weight varies greatly with options based on battery, drives, screen, etc. What do you reference? The heaviest? The lightest?

Like I said, I'm not including mini-notebooks. There are TONS of mini-notebooks made by Sony only released in Japan (similar for other asian manufacturers). This is meant to be a chart of sub-notebook and ultra-portable notebooks, ie full computers with close-to-normal-sized keyboards and readable screens.

As I said in the first post, the Eee is included because its representative of an emerging class of notebook that is gaining a lot of popularity. Its not talked a lot about on this board, but its all the buzz of gadget blogs and tech departments.

sparta.rising wrote:If you think weight is important, feel free to message me with the weights.

I volunteer to do that, but please give me a day or so. To me, weight is far more important than volume, because no matter how small a laptop is, I still need to carry it in a bag, and the bags I use are big enough for any of these laptops. But whether it's 2.4 lb or 3.8 lb makes a huge difference for my shoulders.

sparta.rising wrote:But weight varies greatly with options based on battery, drives, screen, etc. What do you reference? The heaviest? The lightest?

The same can be said about dimensions. Most extended batteries and add 10 mm or more to the depth of the laptop. Also, the thickness of some laptops depends on the screen type, e.g. the X60s with the Ultralight LCD is thinner than the ones with the non-Ultralight panel, and the X20 with 800x600 is thinner than those with 1024x768. In my PM, I will give you the lightest weights.

Very nice effort. I kinda wanted to see how my 240x compared to the more modern machines. Other than the SVGA screen , it seems to compare very well. The probability of finding an XGA LCD for it isn't very good though.

Very nice list. I second the motion that weight gets their own field. Weight is important in this sector that they should be noted. I also want to suggest the list be split into currently in production and out of production models. It will be easier for those who are in the market for an ultraportable to see which ones they can buy new.

My personal favorite is the Panasonic R series. 229mm x 187mm x 29.4/42.5mm (front/rear) and 0.94kg. Tough as a nail too.

msb0b wrote:I second the motion that weight gets their own field. Weight is important in this sector that they should be noted. I also

Oops, I totally forgot that I had volunteered to supply weight info. I'll work on that right away. sparta.rising, you'll get a PM shortly.

UPDATE: Here it is:

240Z: 3.0 lb with 3-cell battery (default is 6-cell)
S30: 3.07 lb
X20: 3.46 lb (models with SVGA are 3.15 lb)
X30: 3.6 lb
X40: 2.76 lb (w/ 4-cell batt)
X60: 3.15 lb (w/ 4-cell batt)
X60s: 2.69 lb (w/ UltraLight screen & 4-cell slim-line batt)
X200: 2.98 lb
X300: 2.93 lb (w/o optical drive) or 3.16 lb (w/ optical drive)
Asus Eee 900: 2.2 lb
Apple Macbook Air: 3.0 lb
Compaq Armada M300: 3.1 lb
Dell Latitude X1: 2.5 lb
Dell Latitude D420: 3.0 lb
Dell Latitude E4200: 2.2 lb
Dell Latitude D400: 3.7 lb
Dell Latitude E4300: 3.0 lb (w/o optical drive) or 3.3 lb (w/ optical drive)
HP 2510p: 2.8 lb (w/o optical drive) or 3.16 lb (w/ optical drive)
Sharp MM20: 2.0 lb
Sony X505: 1.85 lb
Toshiba Portege R100: 2.4 lb
Toshiba Portege R500: 1.72 lb (w/ SSD & w/o optical drive)

Thanks pianowizard. Chart is updated, I included a link to the excel file. I did not include the configurations in the chart because as-is its getting a little wide for forum display, but I put a note in the post that configurations are with smallest battery and no optical drive.

I was in CEX yesterday (I think only those in New England and Old England will know that store) and say the Sony Vaio u50... darn that's small!