The appearance of x32 is really ugly

[mzd]

I got a chance to see x32 from my classmate, I think x41 is really more
'handsome' than x32. And the screen of x32 is really bad. Did not know
why still people like x32. I think x32 is really a smaller T4x, do you think so?

[bhtooefr]

Was your classmate's X32 on battery? If so, from what I've heard, that'll explain the screen.

The X41 has a lot more WOW factor than the X32, but the X32 is still pretty small.

And, yes, it being a smaller T42 was actually what they were going for, AFAICT... If only it had a better GPU...

[mzd]

yes, it was on battery.
And I think x32 is thicker than x41, which makes it looks not so good as x41. Anyway, I think I would like it if I did not see x41.

[bhtooefr]

Yeah, it is thicker...

I know it's thicker than my X21, but I'd still go for the 32 over the 41, due to price and CPU power. That said, I'd much rather have a "33" (I started a thread about that)...

[K. Eng]

People like the x32 because it can accomodate faster 2.5" HDDs (up to 7200RPM) while the X41 is stuck with 1.8" HDDs (only 4200RPM). The x32 also has a discrete graphics processor and does not need to use system RAM for graphics.

As for looks, that is all subjective. I have no preference for either the X32 or X40

[pphilipko]

People like the x32 because it can accomodate faster 2.5" HDDs (up to 7200RPM) while the X41 is stuck with 1.8" HDDs (only 4200RPM). The x32 also has a discrete graphics processor and does not need to use system RAM for graphics.

As for looks, that is all subjective. I have no preference for either the X32 or X40

I thought the X41 had much, MUCH better graphics...

[bhtooefr]

The X32 also uses full voltage processors, up to 2GHz (the lowest end model is 1.6, which is faster than the fastest X40/41/41T).

The X32 IS in desperate need of a refresh, now that the GMA900 is faster than the MR7000...

[K. Eng]

The GMA900 is probably faster than the MR7000, although I have not seen any comparison benchmarks. However, the GMA900 needs to use some system memory, while the MR7000 does not.

I thought the X41 had much, MUCH better graphics...

[bhtooefr]

What clock speeds are the MR7000s used in the X32s?

With that info, a 16MB R7000, ATITool, and a high-end 915G-based system, we could bench the two... However, it'd have to be a PCI R7000, so we'd also have to have an AGP system to bench the PCI and AGP cards side by side. Luckily, a card that old shouldn't be affected that badly by PCI's lack of bandwidth...

[ragefury32]

Um. That's a tough call. technically the GMA900 is a DirectX 8 part, but since it doesn't do transform and lighting onboard it really is no better than the Radeon M6 in most functions, so I would say that they are actually fairly even in 3D, but either one will do fine in casual gaming. I mean, my X31 does fine playing Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask with the 1964 N64 emulator on the subway, but I am not going to use it for Doom 3 or anything (that's for the T41p). If I am with IBM engineering I would want a 64MByte nVidia GeforceFXGo 5200 or ATi Radeon 9550 in the 31/32, but I don't have a cubicle at Yamato Labs tinkering with them (alas).

For my purposes (as a portable coding machine) this Radeon M6 is just handy-dandy, thank you very much, and you should thank your lucky stars that IBM didn't put a Rage Mobility M1 in there. There is an entire generation of otherwise okay Compaq thin-and-lights that were hobbled by the M1 onboard.

Just keep in mind that the X31/32 has alot of advantages compared to the X40/41, namely the use of a conventional 2.5" drive, firewire, 2 memory slots totalling 2GBytes in maximum memory allotment, and CF slots instead of SD. I have no love for that 1.8" drive inside the X40/41s, and maxing out at 1280MBytes means an early retirement for the otherwise okay designs. Windows Vista would most likely want 1GByte to run comfortably...more if you do development (like me).

*sigh*. Although...can someone bring back the old 240Z series? That was a good design. Slap on a 16MByte Radeon M7, a ULV Dothan and a 2GByte memory limit and you got a good machine once again.

[bhtooefr]

FWIW, the X4s can have 512MB on the mobo, so some max out at 1536.

That said, you think IBM didn't use the Rage Mobility in the X series? My X21 has a Mobility M (not even an M1! (the difference is VRAM - the M has 4MB, the M1 has 8MB)). Granted, they switched to an 8MB M6 in the X22, Intel EG1 in the X30, and a 16MB M6 in the X31...

[farmer kev]

*sigh*. Although...can someone bring back the old 240Z series? That was a good design. Slap on a 16MByte Radeon M7, a ULV Dothan and a 2GByte memory limit and you got a good machine once again.

My 240 weights under 3 lbs.

Be nice to have a current Thinkpad that fit this market nich, usable lightweight thinish sub-notebook with great battery life.
Oh well can't afford it anyway.

[bhtooefr]

Hmm... not too hard, seeing as other manufacturers (Sony, JVC, Toshiba, Fujitsu, Sharp, and I know I'm missing someone) have 10.4" or smaller (8.4" in JVC's case, 7" in Toshiba's case, as small as 6.4" (IIRC) in Sony's case) laptops...

With ULV P-Ms and an 855GME chipset, I think it's POSSIBLE...

[ragefury32]

FWIW, the X4s can have 512MB on the mobo, so some max out at 1536.

That said, you think IBM didn't use the Rage Mobility in the X series? My X21 has a Mobility M (not even an M1! (the difference is VRAM - the M has 4MB, the M1 has 8MB)). Granted, they switched to an 8MB M6 in the X22, Intel EG1 in the X30, and a 16MB M6 in the X31...

Oh, I know they did. I used to run an X20 and I still have an X24 around somewhere. Overall, the M/M1s are...mediocre. At least the M6s can do non-powers-of-2 texture mapping, so if Windows Vista clones the functionality of Apple's Quartz Extreme OpenGL accelerated rendering into Avalon, that M6 at least would've gave the Avalon UI some basic (DirecX 7 level) acceleration. Just don't expect to get 3dwm/Cairo style transparency and pixel shader magic eye-candy like on the T40+ with Radeon Mobility 9000+ and whatnot.

[ragefury32]

Hmm... not too hard, seeing as other manufacturers (Sony, JVC, Toshiba, Fujitsu, Sharp, and I know I'm missing someone) have 10.4" or smaller (8.4" in JVC's case, 7" in Toshiba's case, as small as 6.4" (IIRC) in Sony's case) laptops...

With ULV P-Ms and an 855GME chipset, I think it's POSSIBLE...

Ironically, the Japan-only Sony Vaio PCG-U101s are for the most part an X3* clone (with the exception that it's clock-locked to 600MHz and the cache is half the Banias P-M). Of course, that PCG-U101 is tiny, something like half the size and weight of the X3*. Of course, that U101 is also a Sony, with the Sony "for-mee-too-poop-on" warranty and post-sale support.

Granted, yeah. I would like to see the S3* series extended to the S4*, with a ULV Banias, an 855 + Radeon M7/CSP32, and an oversized battery supporting 10 hours. Not gonna happen, though. Specs too similar to the X4*.

And seriously. Why the 855GME? The GME only added DDR333 support to the chipset. TDL had the opportunity to choose the 855GM when they designed the X31 in the first place. Why did they choose the 855PM and waste silicon real estate on a Radeon M6? I still can't quite figure out that one.

[bhtooefr]

The 855GME is lower power than the 915GM, IIRC. Otherwise, I'd have said 915GM in a heartbeat.

Also, with a *big price premium*, the S40 could work. Do it in Piano Black like the S3s, and IBovo'll even have an excuse to charge a lot.

FWIW, as for the 855PM over the GM, it seems that the PM came out a little before the GM, so the PM may have been the only choice. And, the GME was a ways off.

[ragefury32]

Hmm...I think there were some 855GM machines during the big Centrino launch back in March 2003, and during the Anandtech review back in April 2003 an IBM engineer was specifically asked why they went with the M6, and I think the response was due to performance problems.

Although...performance problems? What type of performance did IBM expect out of the 855GM? I mean, they had no qualms about putting the 830MG inside the X30.

Hm. In general the i855 + Banias ULV + ICH4M were more power efficient than the i915 + Dothan + ICH6M setups, so you got a point there.

[beerak]

IBM was never designed to be pretty but the useful silent beauty make it as a rolls-royce, ugly car, but everyone wants it

[K. Eng]

My guess is that the 855GM drivers may not have been as mature as IBM wanted, and that the Radeon 7000 was a proven and "safer" graphics solution.

The 830 chipset with integrated graphics used the same core as the 815 and 810 chipsets with integrated graphics. It had been around forever and the drivers were worked out.