Thinkpads Forum

Cnet's T61 review is finally online. They've categorized it as "mainstream business laptop".

Like the other Santa Rosa systems we've tested, including the Gateway E-475M, the T61 offered excellent performance, but fell slightly behind its less-expensive cousin, the Lenovo ThinkPad R61, because our build of that model had a faster T7500 CPU. It was also slower than the non-Santa-Rosa Lenovo T60p, a long-time laptop favorite. The T60p has a slightly faster, although older, T7600 CPU, showing that the new Centrino Duo platform won't drastically change your computing experience. We expect to see larger performance gains once 800MHz memory is available for laptops later in the year.

Overall performance differences were minor between the largely similar Gateway and Lenovo Santa Rosa systems we tested. In anecdotal testing, the T61 felt fast and was stutter-free, even while multitasking--but we'd expect nothing less from any recent laptop.

While the 128MB Nvidia Quadro NVS 140M graphics card is an option in both the T61 and R61 ThinkPads, our T61 stuck with the integrated Intel X3100 GPU, which Lenovo says will give you better battery life than running a high-powered graphics card. The system ran for an impressive two hours and 29 minutes on our DVD battery drain test, using the included six-cell battery, which sticks out a few inches from the rear of the system. That's a little more than 20 minutes more than the R61, which has the discrete video card option. Keep in mind, our DVD battery-drain test is especially grueling, so you can expect longer life from casual Web surfing and office use.

Anandtech wrote an amazing article about the Santa Rosa platform in general a while back:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/in ... spx?i=2985

I love anandtech articles, unlike CNET, they are not biased at all.

AFAIK, the general feeling about Santa Rosa is 'Meh'. Penryn processors and the Montevina platform (with WiMax) are the next big steps (unlike the evolutionary, not revolutionary, Santa Rosa) from Intel.

Hm, the review sounds quite unambiguous to me: those who already have a T(60(p)) notebook certainly don't need a T61; for those who don't have one, it's a good choice.
Interesting that they don't mention any brightness issues; neither did pcmag.com. I wonder if only individual notebooks might be affected...

gator wrote:Anandtech wrote an amazing article about the Santa Rosa platform in general. AFAIK, the general feeling about Santa Rosa is 'Meh'. Penryn processors and the Montevina platform (with WiMax) are the next big steps (unlike the evolutionary, not revolutionary, Santa Rosa) from Intel.

What an awesome website! I did not read all of the article but went through most of the chuncks and bits of it; including all the schematics. I do agree with you and the article about Santa Rosa's "no tangible performance improvement". However results would be a little bit different, if not at ground-breaking level, if 800Mhz memory were utilized to test the machine. But again there are more bigger mountains to conquer in future, this is just a beginning.

CNET review are always biassed. They gave ipod and apple macbook very high rating despite they are all crap.
I highly recommend notebookreviews.com for all your review need.
Regarding 667Mhz vs. 800Mhz, tomshardware.com confirms that the improvement is very marginal. Integrated graphics and turbocache might get a boost in bandwidth but not much -- not measurable by naked eyes. They are more interested in TurboMemory and they believe it will be better as new and better drivers are released.

I think the FSB speed issue is retarded since the Core 2's have such huge caches.

XIII wrote:I highly recommend notebookreviews.com for all your review need.

If you meant notebookreview.com I agree, I used them quite heavily when deciding what laptop to purchase. They have quite a large repository of reviews.

XIII wrote:CNET review are always biassed. They gave ipod and apple macbook very high rating despite they are all crap.
I highly recommend notebookreviews.com for all your review need.
Regarding 667Mhz vs. 800Mhz, tomshardware.com confirms that the improvement is very marginal. Integrated graphics and turbocache might get a boost in bandwidth but not much -- not measurable by naked eyes. They are more interested in TurboMemory and they believe it will be better as new and better drivers are released.

Who says iPods and MacBooks are crap? Not the millions of people who buy them. Just because you don't like Apple doesn't make it low quality.

MacBooks did have issues, I had one of the first and Apple had to replace it twice. Lots of new products have issues, like the T40 with its on-again/off-again USB or the T30 with its failing memory slots. Once the bugs are worked out (T41) they become extremely good products. Second and third generation MacBooks have no real issues to speak of, just high performance, low prices and NO VIRUSES.

I agree. There would be a lot for me to say about Apple as a company and their reliance on a trendy-shiny-idiot audience despite having one of the most advanced OS technologies in the world; but to call iPods and MacBooks "crap" is nonsense.

(Sorry for OT)

Jan_Hoho wrote:I agree. There would be a lot for me to say about Apple as a company and their reliance on a trendy-shiny-idiot audience despite having one of the most advanced OS technologies in the world; but to call iPods and MacBooks "crap" is nonsense.

(Sorry for OT)

I wouldnt call Macbooks crap, those are nice, but in truth, the iPod has nothing on other players but style. There are other players that are cheaper and have more memory, use more formats, have line in, an fm receiver, mic recording...but the iPod sells more anyway to the crazy apple fanboys.

The turbomemory benchmarks are somewhat surprising to me. Do any T61 users report the same behavior?

kulivontot wrote:The turbomemory benchmarks are somewhat surprising to me. Do any T61 users report the same behavior?

I've seen a couple of different reviews (including a good write-up on AnandTech) that shows a slight performance drop with TM. However, Intel has said that they are still working on the drivers for the card and expect for that to change dramatically. Hard to say.

jjesusfreak01 wrote:

Jan_Hoho wrote:I agree. There would be a lot for me to say about Apple as a company and their reliance on a trendy-shiny-idiot audience despite having one of the most advanced OS technologies in the world; but to call iPods and MacBooks "crap" is nonsense.

(Sorry for OT)

I wouldnt call Macbooks crap, those are nice, but in truth, the iPod has nothing on other players but style. There are other players that are cheaper and have more memory, use more formats, have line in, an fm receiver, mic recording...but the iPod sells more anyway to the crazy apple fanboys.

The iPod sells more because it has a better interface, is smaller, simpler, more elegant and most important, because iTunes has more songs and no silly subscriptions.

asiafish wrote:

jjesusfreak01 wrote:I wouldnt call Macbooks crap, those are nice, but in truth, the iPod has nothing on other players but style. There are other players that are cheaper and have more memory, use more formats, have line in, an fm receiver, mic recording...but the iPod sells more anyway to the crazy apple fanboys.

The iPod sells more because it has a better interface, is smaller, simpler, more elegant and most important, because iTunes has more songs and no silly subscriptions.

..and more than anything, it's in fashion. Popularity.

The ipod, when it comes to pure sound quality, is quite inferior.

As far as Turbo Memory goes, Anandtech and Intel both commented that it was too early to reach a definitive answer as to how effective it is. Given that its just basically "built in Ready Boost," however, I'm really disappointed that it ends up slowing the system down...

Anyways, CNET may not be the end-all for reviews, but I'm glad to hear that they believe the quality of the Thinkpad line remains intact. Gives me hope!

Torque wrote:

asiafish wrote:

Says who? Bundled headphones and encoding bitrate of the song file have more effect on sound quality than the player itself, and even taking those out of the mix, we're not talking about audiophile components here.

My 3-year-old iPod mini sounds terrific when played through my Sennheiser headphones.

No, I wouldn't say the macbooks are crap either, however, I was suprised by some things I noticed yesterday at the Apple store in King of Prussia. I was looking them over closely as I am shopping for a replacement laptop (the R40 in my sig is soon to be giving my wife years of good service). I noticed the following:

1) There is a joint that runs right along the squared off edge of the palm rest. As I was typing, there was some flex in the palm/wrist rest area and it felt like it would bother/pinch over time and irritate my palms/wrists. Was suprised they didn't round that edge off and join the palm rest to the underside of the case differently.
2) there was a *lot* of heat generated on the left side front of the unit on the bottom. Would be uncomfortable to use for extended periods on your lap (IMHO). The heat was also concentrated on the upper left hand side above the keyboard.
3) I'm not the biggest fan of the glossy screen, but looking right on it was nice and crisp, but the vertical viewing angle was pretty small.
4) All of the above I could've maybe lived with but the deal breaker for me was the touchpad and the (relatively) huge single button. After using the machine for 45 minutes I came to the quick realization that while OS X is a fine OS, that it'll have to be Linux / Windows XP on a thinkpad for me if for no other reason than the trackpoint!

Steve

wolfman wrote:No, I wouldn't say the macbooks are crap either, however, I was suprised by some things I noticed yesterday at the Apple store in King of Prussia.

But keep in mind that these display units have been abused by thousands of shoppers.

Good point! I must say, the folks in the store were great - very helpful and there was a tremendous "buzz" there - was definately an interesting store.

asiafish wrote: The iPod sells more because it has a better interface, is smaller, simpler, more elegant and most important, because iTunes has more songs and no silly subscriptions.

The iPod sells more because it's become synonymous with mp3, because it is better marketed. Not because it has a better interface, or is smaller, or more elegant. It is none of those.

Apple's majority in the market also allows it to put 80GB models out there for just over £200. Knowone can compete with that.

And what's more, market demand now favours smaller, flash based players. Quality has been sacrificed all over the market. iRiver and Cowon, once bastions of quality, now are pushing out cheap crap just as Apple do. *sighs*

pianowizard wrote:But keep in mind that these display units have been abused by thousands of shoppers.

Hmmm, yes, it could be that someone had pocketed the TrackPoint and the second mouse button!



More seriously, the things wolfman pointed out -- the seam at the front, the significant heat production, glossy screen and the pointing device -- are all design decisions Apple made. Whether the unit is new out of the box or a beaten-up demo, those will apply in either case.

tomh009 wrote:More seriously, the things wolfman pointed out -- the seam at the front, the significant heat production, glossy screen and the pointing device -- are all design decisions Apple made.

I was mainly referring to the palmrest flex that he mentioned, which was probably due to abuse because I've used friends' MacBooks and MacBook Pros and the former are as solid as the best Thinkpads while the latter are even more solid. The heat production could be partly due to these display units being left on 24/7. My coworker's MacBook Pro feels somewhat cooler than my T60 and much cooler than my X60s.

I actually prefer glossy screens, BTW.

jjesusfreak01 wrote:...other players that are cheaper and have more memory, use more formats, have line in, an fm receiver, mic recording...but the iPod sells more anyway to the crazy apple fanboys.

First of all, not everyone wants all the extras. (although I do agree there are players out there which give more for your money when talking about specs)
Second, it's not apple fanboys as, as far as I know, *everyone* still uses windows. People just know the ipod, some even say ipod to another mp3-player. They just buy it because "everyone has one".

asiafish wrote:The iPod sells more because it has a better interface, is smaller, simpler, more elegant and most important, because iTunes has more songs and no silly subscriptions.

I don't find the interface better all the way. For example just going to the current (on-the-go) playlist isn't possible in a fast way (as far as I know). Adding a song to a playlist on-the-go is hold the middle button, there are other players where you can add it by a single click, that is MUCH faster when you add a lot of songs. (I personally always make playlists on the go)

Although I don't know for the ipod nano, the ipod video definitely isn't that small. My archos XS 202 is a lot smaller, although somewhat ticker (and when you put something in your pocket, a thing "big" player is less handy). It also is lighter (ok, it's also 10GB of space less) and I put it in my pocket every day and after a year there still aren't any scratches on it. I wouldn't risk that with an ipod video. That's also the funny thing about it in my opinion, a lot of people find it so beautiful, they buy it and put it in a case which makes it look SO ugly... (there are however some sort of "socks" so when you use it you actually see it's beauty)

Agree it is simple and elegant in comparisation with most opponents.

The amount of people that buy an ipod because of the iTunes Music Store is really small I think (although it might be a motivation for some). The other way around it's un-user-friendly that once you bought music in the iTunes Music Store, you're kind of stuck with an ipod. (Yes I heard of the write-cd/rip-cd methods and a program one developped to remove the drm, but it stays unfriendly) I also know there are reasons why they choose for their own format etc so I don't actually blame Apple too much for it.


@wolfman:
1) I personally don't find it irritating because the device is so thin. On the otherside, I also don't understand why there's that stupid 1mm-space between the palm rest and the underside, it attracks dust.
2) Agree. I heard all people at apple even need to call it "portable computer" instead of "laptop". Also remember that devices in the store often run the whole day which makes them hotter.
3) I dislike glossy screens but the high brightness of the macbook makes that partially acceptable. I've used it in the garden and that went as well as it did with my thinkpad. Though, if I had the choice, I definitely would go for the matte screen.
4) I miss it too! (I'm lucky to own both a thinkpad and a macbook) However I want to add that the size of the touchpad on the macbook is huge in comparisation with most other brands.

About the T61:
I haven't seen one in person, but the asymmetric screen seems kind of disturbing to me. What I also seemed to notice on the pics is that the screen border is flat while (at least on my R60) they turned inside which lets the screen flex less. I'm wondering if the roll-cage in the screen has much benefit over that.

pianowizard wrote:The heat production could be partly due to these display units being left on 24/7.

Am I the only one here who leaves his ThinkPad on 24/7 (well, except for my commute to/from home)? My X31 is surely on at least as much as the Apple store units, which may even get shut down when the store closes -- and which certainly are running in a highly air-conditioned environment!

pianowizard wrote:I actually prefer glossy screens, BTW.

Oh! I thought you were a matte fan ... my eyes hurt if the brightness is too much, or if there is some bright reflection is there on the laptop LCD. If so many people like glossy screens, I wonder why we don't see any glossy desktop LCD monitors - every monitor I have seen is matte, irrespective of the brand. I find this very strange.

jjesusfreak01 wrote:

Jan_Hoho wrote:I agree. There would be a lot for me to say about Apple as a company and their reliance on a trendy-shiny-idiot audience despite having one of the most advanced OS technologies in the world; but to call iPods and MacBooks "crap" is nonsense.

(Sorry for OT)

I wouldnt call Macbooks crap, those are nice, but in truth, the iPod has nothing on other players but style. There are other players that are cheaper and have more memory, use more formats, have line in, an fm receiver, mic recording...but the iPod sells more anyway to the crazy apple fanboys.

Hm, what other company, selling less equipped but higher quality hardware, comes to mind here...

tomh009 wrote:Am I the only one here who leaves his ThinkPad on 24/7? My X31 is surely on at least as much as the Apple store units

Older laptops don't warm up as much.

gator wrote:Oh! I thought you were a matte fan ...

I don't mind matte (obviously, because I've owned >20 Thinkpads!), but like glossy more. The Dell Inspiron 700m's glossy screen was one of the reasons it's one of my all-time favorite laptops. And that's also why I don't like it when certain forum members label all Dell laptops as crap!

(BTW, thanks for your email. I haven't had a chance to listen to the clip yet but will do so tonight.)

pianowizard wrote:

tomh009 wrote:Am I the only one here who leaves his ThinkPad on 24/7? My X31 is surely on at least as much as the Apple store units

Older laptops don't warm up as much.

The X31 runs pretty hot, I had to take precautions to make it run at reasonable temperatures.