Better Notebook: X40 or T42 (or T30)???

[mattfromomaha]

Anyone have any experience with both the X40 and T42? I'm still trying to figure out an upgrade to my T30.

On one hand, the X40 has an amazing battery life and tiny, tiny footprint. But, the screen is smaller, and there is no s-video port.

On the other hand, the T42 has the same sized screen as my beloved T30, is smaller and better battery life than the T30, but my experience when handling demo T40s is that it seems like the build quality is far more flimsy than the T30 (add to that the squeaky palmrest, loose battery, flexing keyboard...)

As much as I want smaller footprint/better battery life/less weight, I don't want to sacrifice the build quality of my T30.

Any words of wisdom would be most appreciated!

Thanks!

[eriqesque]

Well I had a T40 and now have the X40.

IMHO the X40 is definitely much better built.
the build of the X40 is unbelievable.

As for the T42 being smaller I think it's thinner.
But I think it's wider and deeper.

I think it boils down to how important the portability is to you.
And just how much power you want.

T's get much faster Proc. and you can get a faster HD.

After having the X40 now, I personally can't imagine going back.

[plucky duck]

The T-series quality is above standard to the Dells and Toshibas I've used in the past, but against the X-series there is no comparison in my opinion. I've had the opportunity to try both, and I still prefer the build quality of the X over the T series. It just feels THAT much more solid.

[atlacatl]

What about the performance?

I know you can't really make an apples to apples comparison between a 1.6 GHz and a 1.2 GHz - I mean, we all know that 6 > 2...

However, performance is a percepted thing with laptops, now a days - For the users who have used both (At least a week) - Do you see/feel/percept a big lost in computing power?

I've been considering going to an X40, from a T40p, just because of the footprint, but, I hesitate as I run a couple of servers (DB, WepShphere, a couple of IDEs, MacromediaMX, Visio, MS Word + others) all at once and I'm not too sure of the "real" percepted difference of CPU power. Do you even notice it?

Any comments?

[apoll0]

Well, I have not used the X series... but

with respect to performance: it really depends on what you use your TP for. But nonetheless, the differences in performance between a 1.6 GHz and a 1.2 GHz is not that noticeable. The CPU speed is not the bottleneck in system performance. My desktop runs an AMD 800 MHz processor, but with plenty of RAM and a 7200 rpm HD, it loads applications only 1 or two seconds slower compared to my T40p. And I think this has alot to do with the L2 Cache than the speed of the CPU itself. My point is: don't worry about the X being only 1.2 GHz, make sure you have plenty of RAM, a decent HD and graphic card.

as for build quality: I've played around with an X30 before, and it is solid. But I went with the T model instead because I needed and SXGA+ screen for my work.

Happy Hunting.

[apoll0]

Well, I have not used the X series... but

with respect to performance: it really depends on what you use your TP for. But nonetheless, the differences in performance between a 1.6 GHz and a 1.2 GHz is not that noticeable. The CPU speed is not the bottleneck in system performance. My desktop runs an AMD 800 MHz processor, but with plenty of RAM and a 7200 rpm HD, it loads applications only 1 or two seconds slower compared to my T40p. And I think this has alot to do with the L2 Cache than the speed of the CPU itself. My point is: don't worry about the X being only 1.2 GHz, make sure you have plenty of RAM, a decent HD and graphic card.

as for build quality: I've played around with an X30 before, and it is solid. But I went with the T model instead because I needed and SXGA+ screen for my work.

Happy Hunting.