Take a look at our
ThinkPads.com HOME PAGE
For those who might want to contribute to the blog, start here: Editors Alley Topic
Then contact Bill with a Private Message

HDD clicking on X41T - cache problem on the drive?

X2/X3/X4x series specific matters only
Message
Author
Yotam
Sophomore Member
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:53 am
Location: Israel

#31 Post by Yotam » Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:41 pm

gst wrote:seems that the SATA bridge is really the cause of this problem. everybody with an X40 reported that the cache is there while everybody with X41 reports that the cache is missing ... (IMO the cache is still there but the SATA bridge doesn't allow you to query the size of it).
Maybe it is not the SATA bridge but the hard drives. Maybe the new line of hard drives that were manufactured for X41 and X41T are defected? (I mean maybe Hitachi has a problem and their HDs are being manufactured with no cache or a problem with it)

Does X40 also has this clicking problem? Do the people who reported they do have cache have this clicks?
X41 Tablet 18666TU 1.5GHz CPU, 60GB HDD, 1.5GB RAM, DVD-CDRW

DavidNZ
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 554
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 3:18 am
Location: New Zealand

#32 Post by DavidNZ » Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:22 pm

jokerunm wrote: This is getting kind of irritating, I'm asking you X40 owners to help out the X41T users a little....please post benchmarks of your drives.......
Thanks.
I can understand you're frustrated, mate. I gave an AIDA32 report earlier in this thread, and indicated that there is cache with my new HDD and there was a cache with my old HDD. As well, a DFT on my new HDD also shows a cache. I'm taking it to mean that I do indeed have a cache. AIDA32 doesn't require an install - it's an exe that runs in RAM until it is closed.

I would think that if your DFT shows 0 cache, you'd best call IBM.

As for clicking, yes I have it. My HDD is always parking the heads, even if for a second or two. I've gotten used to it, and both HDDs have done this.

Hope this helps?

David

EDIT: more clarification on the clicks. I don't have a rythmic clicking (i.e., tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick, etc.). I have a 'clunk' when it parks, then another one when it springs back to life. I've basically concluded that these are just noisy drives.
X40 (2371-6EM) w/ 768 RAM
XPP SP2
DLINK DI-614+

jokerunm
Freshman Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 6:28 pm

#33 Post by jokerunm » Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:04 am

That's not what I'm irratated about. Ok lets break it down.

1.X40 and X41T both have 1.8inch Hitachi Travelstar drives which have 2 meg caches.

2. Many X41T users report having no 2 meg caches.(Via DFT, HDTune)

3. Many X40 users report having 2 meg caches. (Via DFT, HDTune)

4. The X40 and X41T have different chipsets, including the south bridge, thus different --->ide/ATA controllers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, that information give us a couple of scenarios.

A. The drives in the X41T all have bad caches.
B. The drives in the X41T have working caches and are being reported as incorrectly bad because of the differing chipset.

Ok....so how can we figure out which scenario is correct? --> Solutions

I. Take a drive from an X41T and insert it into an X40, and see what kind of cache is reported with a different chipset.

II. Compare the performance of the two drives using benchmarking utilities.

--Yes the differing systems/chipsets might cause a difference in performance, but there should be a huge difference in performance between similar drives with cache and without cache.


Ok, here is what's irritating

1. Users with access to both an X40 and X41t(Admins come to mind) can easily help out with solution I., by switching drives and running DFT, but no one has.

2. X40 users have not posted any bechmarks, so solution II. is out the window as well.

==============================================

To me flooding calls to Lenovo is not going to help matters...when they are either clueless or in denial. We as users have to gather the facts and figure out what's actually going on. Then we can call Lenovo armed with information and facts to force a solution.

beq
Sophomore Member
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 2:17 am
Location: TX, USA

#34 Post by beq » Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:43 am

To add even more speculative fire to the mix (just for fun), might this be the cause of the mouse pointer stuttering problem on the X41 Tablet (which does not occur on the X40)...

http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.ph ... 1&start=33

j/k :D

Anyways, I can try swapping the drives later when I get a chance, though I'm still busy updating/configuring both laptops at the moment. I'll still need to get a USB floppy drive for DFT boot disk anyway (perhaps a USB memory key might also work but I don't have that either)...

gst
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 2:48 am

#35 Post by gst » Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:13 pm

beq wrote:To add even more speculative fire to the mix (just for fun), might this be the cause of the mouse pointer stuttering problem on the X41 Tablet (which does not occur on the X40)...
i have a X41 (non-tablet) and didn't have any mouse pointer problem yet. my cache is displayed too as 0MB.

jokerunm
Freshman Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 6:28 pm

#36 Post by jokerunm » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:09 pm

gst wrote:
beq wrote:To add even more speculative fire to the mix (just for fun), might this be the cause of the mouse pointer stuttering problem on the X41 Tablet (which does not occur on the X40)...
i have a X41 (non-tablet) and didn't have any mouse pointer problem yet. my cache is displayed too as 0MB.
The X41 tablet and the X41 use the same chipset. Other than the screen, the X41 tablet and the X41 are pretty much identical.

Yotam
Sophomore Member
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:53 am
Location: Israel

#37 Post by Yotam » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:37 pm

jokerunm wrote:
gst wrote: i have a X41 (non-tablet) and didn't have any mouse pointer problem yet. my cache is displayed too as 0MB.
The X41 tablet and the X41 use the same chipset. Other than the screen, the X41 tablet and the X41 are pretty much identical.
Just a guess - but maybe the mouse pointer problem is of the XP Tablet Edition? If X41 and X41T are the same (and AFAIK they are), and on they both we see 0 cache, the only difference I see is the operating system. :?:
X41 Tablet 18666TU 1.5GHz CPU, 60GB HDD, 1.5GB RAM, DVD-CDRW

bhtooefr
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1371
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:02 pm
Location: Newark, Ohio
Contact:

#38 Post by bhtooefr » Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:44 pm

The way to prove it?

Take an HDD out of a stuttering X41T, put it in an X41 non-T that performs fine, and is configured IDENTICALLY.

If it stutters, it's the OS or the HDD (yes, the HDD. Bad performance can be caused by a failing HDD.) If it doesn't, it's the X41T itself.
Current: X201 (i5-540M, 8 GiB, 160 GB), 365XD (120 MHz, 72 MiB, 6.4 GB, 4x CD-ROM, 10.4" TFT)
Past: T61p 15.0" QXGA, T60p 15.0" QXGA, X61 Tablet SXGA+, R51e 14.1" XGA, X21

jokerunm
Freshman Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 6:28 pm

#39 Post by jokerunm » Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:12 am

bhtooefr wrote:The way to prove it?

Take an HDD out of a stuttering X41T, put it in an X41 non-T that performs fine, and is configured IDENTICALLY.

If it stutters, it's the OS or the HDD (yes, the HDD. Bad performance can be caused by a failing HDD.) If it doesn't, it's the X41T itself.
Or, you can check if the cache is there and run some benchmarks? How bout that?

bhtooefr
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1371
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:02 pm
Location: Newark, Ohio
Contact:

#40 Post by bhtooefr » Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:18 am

That will work as well, but my test is better at determining whether a problem is specific to a certain X41T's hardware, or the HDD or OS.

Quick question: what happens when you put an X41 HDD in an X40? Can it boot it without modifications? If yes, then an X40 needs to be in the test suite.

So, we need:

A stuttering X41T
An X41 with the same config as the X41T
An X40 with as close of a config as possible to the X41 and X41T.

Benchmarks all around, of course.
Current: X201 (i5-540M, 8 GiB, 160 GB), 365XD (120 MHz, 72 MiB, 6.4 GB, 4x CD-ROM, 10.4" TFT)
Past: T61p 15.0" QXGA, T60p 15.0" QXGA, X61 Tablet SXGA+, R51e 14.1" XGA, X21

jokerunm
Freshman Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 6:28 pm

#41 Post by jokerunm » Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:45 am

Ok, do whatever the hell you want...while you're doing those test just tell me if you can see the cache or not, ok?

bhtooefr
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1371
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:02 pm
Location: Newark, Ohio
Contact:

#42 Post by bhtooefr » Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:46 am

You mean whoever can actually access the things? :?

I'm just suggesting tests. Not owning any of these three laptops, I can't do the tests :(
Current: X201 (i5-540M, 8 GiB, 160 GB), 365XD (120 MHz, 72 MiB, 6.4 GB, 4x CD-ROM, 10.4" TFT)
Past: T61p 15.0" QXGA, T60p 15.0" QXGA, X61 Tablet SXGA+, R51e 14.1" XGA, X21

.di
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 5:26 pm

#43 Post by .di » Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:13 am

i just run HDtune and it show that my hdd don't have any buffer size.. =(

http://upl.silentwhisper.net/uplfolders ... G9AT00.png

my hdd have a clicking sound.. =( is that normal..??
Last edited by .di on Sat Oct 08, 2005 11:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

jokerunm
Freshman Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 6:28 pm

#44 Post by jokerunm » Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:59 pm

.di wrote:i just run HDtune and it show that my hdd don't have any buffer size.. =(

Image

my hdd have a clicking sound.. =( is that normal..??
Is this an X41, X41T?

Yotam
Sophomore Member
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:53 am
Location: Israel

#45 Post by Yotam » Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:02 pm

.di, if you use X41 or X41 Tablet then evreything is just "normal". No buffer, clicking HDD... these are all "normal" if you consider normal as what everyone has :roll: .
X41 Tablet 18666TU 1.5GHz CPU, 60GB HDD, 1.5GB RAM, DVD-CDRW

Grey Area
Freshman Member
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:02 pm
Location: Koblenz, Germany

#46 Post by Grey Area » Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:03 pm

jokerunm wrote: 2. X40 users have not posted any bechmarks, so solution II. is out the window as well.
As a X41-owner I would also be very interested in the results of such tests on the X40. Maybe a call for help would be more successful in a new, specific thread? This one here ("HDD clicking on X41T...") might have the wrong title to grab an X40-owner´s attention. :D

Björn

PDADoc
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:46 am
Location: New York City
Contact:

#47 Post by PDADoc » Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:10 am

jokerunm wrote:
.di wrote:i just run HDtune and it show that my hdd don't have any buffer size.. =(

Image

my hdd have a clicking sound.. =( is that normal..??
Is this an X41, X41T?
Well, at least you can successfully run it at all: I just ran HDTune and the only thing it showed was my Maxtor 300GB USB drive!!! :x

I can't figure this one out at all, and it's fast becoming a $2000 lemon! :x

BTW, I want to post my results, but can't figure out how to do it. If it requires having a Web page to do it, then I'm out of luck.[/img]
Richard T. Bell, MD, PhD

Current Machine: ThinkPad X41 Tablet (1866-6TU)
60GB HDD, 512MB RAM

bhtooefr
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1371
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:02 pm
Location: Newark, Ohio
Contact:

#48 Post by bhtooefr » Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:55 am

Do you have the screenshot?

Go to http://imageshack.us and upload the image there. No website needed :D
Current: X201 (i5-540M, 8 GiB, 160 GB), 365XD (120 MHz, 72 MiB, 6.4 GB, 4x CD-ROM, 10.4" TFT)
Past: T61p 15.0" QXGA, T60p 15.0" QXGA, X61 Tablet SXGA+, R51e 14.1" XGA, X21

PDADoc
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:46 am
Location: New York City
Contact:

#49 Post by PDADoc » Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:31 am

Thanks! I'll have to remember that. :)

Anyway, here's the screenshot from my test:

[img][img]http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/7729 ... 0cx.th.png[/img][/img]

It's strange that my X41T's HDD couldn't be seen. Furthermore, when I ran the drive fitness test from a DOS prompt, with the intention of doing a low-level format, it said that it didn't even work on the type of hard drive I had. Did I get a HD lemon from IBM/Lenovo? Should I request a replacement?
Richard T. Bell, MD, PhD

Current Machine: ThinkPad X41 Tablet (1866-6TU)
60GB HDD, 512MB RAM

.di
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 5:26 pm

#50 Post by .di » Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:13 am

According to Hitachi's homepage the hdd in X41 have 2M of cach
http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/support/c ... k60_ce.htm

theFirst
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:04 am

Cache is hardware based - according to the Hitachi guy

#51 Post by theFirst » Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:08 am

Hey all.

I decided to chat with Hitachi first before I chat with the IBM folks, and according to their tech support, having 0 cache is definately not right, and quote "The cache is hardware based... it is physically mounted on the HDD." He cannot imagine why it would report zero other than the fact that the interface might be screwed.

He also suggested that I contact IBM to get the drive replaced. Below is a record of the chat. I left the last few part out b/c it had my contact info...

-Connie

#----------------------

Paul: Thank you for using Hitachi GST's On-line Chat. How may I help you today?
Connie: hi Paul
Connie: I just have a question
Connie: I just brought an IBM thinkpad X41
Connie: actually X41 tablet
Connie: and I believe it has this drive
Connie: http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/support/c ... k60_ce.htm
Connie: the disk performance is really slow, and I just want to know if there has been problems reported with the drive?
Paul: You could test the drive using out DFT utility. It will diagnose the drive to see if it is having any issues.
Paul: Click here visit our downloads page.
Paul: http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/support/download.htm#dft
Connie: I've done that, and the only thing I can see wrong was it is reporting having zero for cache buffer
Connie: yeah, the Data buffer is being reported as zero
Connie: when in fact according to your data sheet it should be 2MB
Paul: That is unusual. It should be 2 MB.
Paul: You can verify the cache settings using the feature tool... also downloadable from the same site.
Connie: is it compatible with this drive? I don't see this drive as being compatible with the feature tool
Paul: I've never really tested the 1.8" drives with feature tool to see if it works. I am assuming it does.
Connie: that might be a possibility I guess
Paul: Reporting zero cache makes sense that the drive would be acting slowly
Connie: have you seen anything in your company database has having problem with this drive?
Connie: I've googled this issue and it seems a lot of people are reporting that they have performance issue and zero cache with this drive on IBM thinkpad x41T
Paul: Unfortunately, there is nothing similar to this issue. But, I will be asking if anyone has seen a similar issue.
Connie: http://www.tabletpcbuzz.com/forum/topic ... hichpage=2
Connie: I will try what you suggest and I may come back to chat with you. How long will you be online?
Paul: It may be a problem with the notebook interface.
Connie: how would I find out?
Paul: The cache is hardware based... it is physically mounted on the HDD. I cannot see it actually being zero.
Paul: I am sending a report to our lab to verify what is going on. Meanwhile, I wouldn't be satisfied with the performance. I'd call IBM and get the drive replaced.
Connie: I think I may do that after I did what you suggest
Paul: Okay, is there anything else I can do for you?
Connie: by the way from what I've read on the forum thread that I just sent you, the Lenovo folks are saying that your Driver Fitness Test is off
Connie: i don't really believe it, but I just want you to note that when you send in your report
Paul: That may be the case... I don't know for sure. This is why I want this tested.

DavidNZ
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 554
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 3:18 am
Location: New Zealand

#52 Post by DavidNZ » Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:24 pm

Excellent. That's interesting.

For what it's worth, i've never been able to get the Feature's Tool to work on my X40's hard drive.
X40 (2371-6EM) w/ 768 RAM
XPP SP2
DLINK DI-614+

beq
Sophomore Member
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 2:17 am
Location: TX, USA

#53 Post by beq » Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:46 pm

I haven't had a chance to swap my X40 and X41T drives yet, but I have three of these 1.8-inch 4200RPM Hitachi hard drives with me currently.

* X40: Some version of the 40GB Hitachi C4K40 (but instead of HTC424040F9AT00 model, the drive is listed as model HITACHI_DK13FA-40B?)
-> HDTune Benchmark

* X41T: 60GB Hitachi C4K60 (model HTC426060G9AT00)
-> HDTune Benchmark

* Another 60GB Hitachi C4K60 (same model as above) external OEM drive in a USB enclosure
-> HDTune Benchmark (connected to X40 USB port)
-> HDTune Benchmark (connected to X41T USB port)

HDTune lists my X40's 40GB drive with 2MB cache and the X41T's 60GB drive with 0. The 60GB USB drive is also listed with 0 cache, but perhaps that's because HDTune can't really read the drive's parameters (since most of the other drive details are blank).

-----
But you guys should definitely try to boot into the built-in PC-Doctor DOS-based diagnostics from the service partition (boot into R&R3 workspace and select "Diagnose hardware"). Once there, select Hardware Info -> IDE Drive Info and you'll get a wealth of physical drive parameters. Very interesting differences between the X40 and X41T drives. The X41T's cache type is displayed as not being able to be recognized, or something like that (so that the cache size here is also listed as 0). Thus what other people have said about it being a simple misdiagnosis possibly due to the SATA bridge seems to make sense?

Edit: Other interesting confusion: X40 drive's "Coding method is other than MFM". Says the opposite about X41T drive...

PC-Doctor says it cannot query the other PATA ports on the X40 (or something like that), but it can on the X41T, strange...

Says X40 drive transfer rate is over 10 Mbs, but X41T drive is under 5 Mbs... :)
Last edited by beq on Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yotam
Sophomore Member
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:53 am
Location: Israel

#54 Post by Yotam » Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:42 pm

Ok, done that PC DOCTOR boot test and it shows zero cache too. Also, there is nothing there about any SATA controller. It shows only IDE controllers (primary and secondary).
This is a "built in" diagnostic tool. Shouldn't it recognize everything on the machine? Shouldn't we believe it when it says that there is no cache?
X41 Tablet 18666TU 1.5GHz CPU, 60GB HDD, 1.5GB RAM, DVD-CDRW

jokerunm
Freshman Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 6:28 pm

#55 Post by jokerunm » Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:51 pm

My HD Tune results for my X41T are pretty much on par with yours. The performance isn't pretty, but I don't think even that kind of performance can be achieved with no cache. The X40 score is pretty close and is suppose to be killing the X41T with no cache but it isn't.

It's really looking like the cache is not being reported correctly in the X41s. You can pretty much confirm it when you swap drives. Hope you do.




beq wrote:I haven't had a chance to swap my X40 and X41T drives yet, but I have three of these 1.8-inch 4200RPM Hitachi hard drives with me currently.

* X40: Some version of the 40GB Hitachi C4K40 (but instead of HTC424040F9AT00 model, the drive is listed as model HITACHI_DK13FA-40B?)
-> HDTune Benchmark

* X41T: 60GB Hitachi C4K60 (model HTC426060G9AT00)
-> HDTune Benchmark

* Another 60GB Hitachi C4K60 (same model as above) external OEM drive in a USB enclosure
-> HDTune Benchmark (connected to X40 USB port)
-> HDTune Benchmark (connected to X41T USB port)

HDTune lists my X40's 40GB drive with 2MB cache and the X41T's 60GB drive with 0. The 60GB USB drive is also listed with 0 cache, but perhaps that's because HDTune can't really read the drive's parameters (since most of the other drive details are blank).

-----
But you guys should definitely try to boot into the built-in PC-Doctor DOS-based diagnostics from the service partition (boot into R&R3 workspace and select "Diagnose hardware"). Once there, select Hardware Info -> IDE Drive Info and you'll get a wealth of physical drive parameters. Very interesting differences between the X40 and X41T drives. The X41T's cache type is displayed as not being able to be recognized, or something like that (so that the cache size here is also listed as 0). Thus what other people have said about it being a simple misdiagnosis possibly due to the SATA bridge seems to make sense?

Edit: Other interesting confusion: X40 drive's "Coding method is other than MFM". Says the opposite about X41T drive...

PC-Doctor says it cannot query the other PATA ports on the X40 (or something like that), but it can on the X41T, strange...

Says X40 drive transfer rate is over 10 Mbs, but X41T drive is under 5 Mbs... :)

.di
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 5:26 pm

#56 Post by .di » Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:50 pm

I’m pretty lost here now.. According to the spec from Hitachi this hdd are suppose to have 2MB cache.. it is that all this program can't see this cache memory or is it that most of use have a bad hdd..??

jokerunm
Freshman Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 6:28 pm

#57 Post by jokerunm » Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:31 pm

.di wrote:I’m pretty lost here now.. According to the spec from Hitachi this hdd are suppose to have 2MB cache.. it is that all this program can't see this cache memory or is it that most of use have a bad hdd..??
That's why I wanted to compare performance. If the hard drives indeed have bad caches than there would be a huge difference in performance.

If not...then the cache on the drives is probably just be reported incorrectly.

.di
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 5:26 pm

#58 Post by .di » Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:31 pm

here is the result from my benchmark

http://upl.silentwhisper.net/uplfolders ... G9AT00.png
Last edited by .di on Sat Oct 08, 2005 11:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

bhtooefr
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1371
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:02 pm
Location: Newark, Ohio
Contact:

#59 Post by bhtooefr » Fri Oct 07, 2005 10:19 pm

Does anybody find it odd that his burst rate is below his maximum?

Cache is what gives you a high burst rate. So, if the burst rate is lower than the maximum SUSTAINED rate...

It may well not have any cache...
Current: X201 (i5-540M, 8 GiB, 160 GB), 365XD (120 MHz, 72 MiB, 6.4 GB, 4x CD-ROM, 10.4" TFT)
Past: T61p 15.0" QXGA, T60p 15.0" QXGA, X61 Tablet SXGA+, R51e 14.1" XGA, X21

taob
Sophomore Member
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Contact:

#60 Post by taob » Sat Oct 08, 2005 12:14 am

Here's the HDTune benchmark results for my X40. HDTune was set to "most accurate". The burst rate and average access time are consistent with a drive with a cache.

Image
- Brian
2004: 2371-8EU X40, 1.2 GHz Pentium M, 1 GB, 40 GB, 802.11b/g, 2 x 8-cell
2007: 2623-DDU T60p, 2.0 GHz T2500, 2 GB, 200GB 7200 rpm, 802.11a/b/g, BT, 3 x 9-cell, 15" UXGA FlexView, Adv Mini Dock
2011: 4286-CTO X220, 2.5 GHz i5-2520M, 8 GB, 60GB SSD, 250GB HD

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “ThinkPad X2/X3/X4x Series incl. X41 Tablet”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests