X41 review by a very picky user

Message

asiafish · #1 Post by **asiafish** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:15 pm

Well, I’ve had my X41 for a few weeks now and thought I’d write a little review, comparing it to the X32 that just went to a family member and the T42p I used to own. I’ve never had such opposing opinions of a laptop, or any inanimate object as I do for this X41.

To start, this is absolutely the best looking and best built laptop that I have ever owned. The build quality is phenomenal, zero flex, no creaks, which I could not say about either the X32 (cracked at the PC card slot twice) or T42p (palmrest creaks). Everything about this machine just screams quality.

It is very fast, sometimes. Here is one of those love/hate points. The processor and memory are very fast, and for an integrated graphics processor, so are the graphics. My other two recent-model ThinkPads had 1.8GHz processors and discreet graphics while the X41 has a 1.6GHz low voltage processor and integrated graphics, but I’m finding no appreciable slowdown in most tasks compared to either machine except when it comes to disk access. Even reasonably high end games play smoothly at medium and high detail levels despite the integrated graphics. I’m not talking about Quake 4 or anything, but Rome: Total War blows me away on this computer every bit as well as it did on the T42p.

The hard disk is one of my two complaints. There are no drives larger than 60GB (I have a 40GB) and none faster than 4200 RPM. Even the 4200 RPM spec doesn’t describe how slow the drive is, as a conventional 2.5” 4200 RPM drive will feel considerably faster than the tiny 1.8” drive in the X41. The lack of speed manifests itself most in cold boots, which prompted me to ditch Symantec Antivirus and ZoneAlarm Pro, two programs I’ve depended on for years, in the interest of faster booting. With those programs installed it took my X41 over 3 1/2 minutes to fully boot to a responsive Windows desktop, while without I’m down to a bit under 1 1/2 minutes. I’m not sure how much is disk access and how much is just the X41 responding to the software its running, but I never noticed such slow boot times on my other computers. Once booted up, the drive is slow, but not slow enough to annoy me in any way. Could be just running a leaner system that makes up for it, but at the end of the day the X41 feels fast and responsive with its current software load.

I love the fingerprint reader. I used to think this was a gimmick that I just didn’t need, but now that I have it, I wouldn’t go back. I used to just take a huge risk by configuring Windows to load my account automatically and not require a password when resuming from standby or hibernation. Now a quick swipe when I start up or resume my machine and I’m just as fast as before, but a whole lot more secure.

Battery life is a bit of a mystery on this thing. My X41 is the fastest one they made at 1.6GHz, so I expect a bit of a reduction in runtime compared to the ULV 1.2GHz X40s, but 2 1/2 hours? X40s are listed to run as long as 8 hours on their 8 cell battery, while the best I can get is 5:30 with the screen dim to 0 bars and the processor at 200MHz. Now 5:30 is great battery life for such a tiny laptop, but I’d trade some speed for a few more hours.

I’m absolutely in love with the keyboard. Unlike the X32 which only has one supplier of keyboards (Chicony), the X41 has two suppliers, Chicony and NMB. I love the Thai NMB keyboards like the one I had on my T42p, and I have one on my X41 now, with Korean keycaps no less. I do occasional writing in Korean, and ordering a Korean NMB keyboard was a cheap $58 and I had it the next day, and now I still have a like-new NMB English keyboard to keep for a rainy day.

Wireless performance is identical to the X32 and inferior to the T42p. The T42p had an Atheros card where the two X series have Intel cards. I’ll be shopping for an Atheros Mini PCI-Express card to boost my wireless performance later on, but while not as sensitive, the Intel cards have been reliable.

The X4 ultrabase is like the X41 itself, both better and worse than the X3 ultrabase on my previous ThinkPad. I loved the largish speakers on the X3 and its ability to mount a second main battery without giving up the ultrabay. The X4 base cannot take a second main cell and can only accept a second battery in place of the optical drive. More annoying is that the speakers in the X4 are smaller and closer together, with worse positioning. Where the X3 speakers fired down and forward at about a 45 degree angle to provide great sound for DVD movies, the X4 speakers fire almost straight down. Sound is still acceptable, but no longer a standout compared to other ultraportables.

In its favor, the X4 adds far less size and weight to the X41 than the X3 does to the X32, making for a relatively trim and light two-spindle carry configuration when its needed. While I usually take just the X41 on its own, I like to bring the base for longer flights when I plan to watch movies I haven’t had time to rip to the hard drive.

So there is my review of the X41. While there are a few disappointments to the design, overall I’m extremely impressed. My original plan was to send the X41 to Korea and keep the X32, which served me extremely well at a recent legal convention, but one look at the X41 configured with its 4-cell battery (I have the 4-cell, the 8-cell and just ordered the plate battery) and I knew I had to keep it. At 2.7 lbs it still runs for over 2 hours with the screen dim, and when I need more, I can easily configure it.

Oh, thanks to John (Brainpicker) for the excellent transaction. Will buy again from him.

bigtiger · #2 Post by **bigtiger** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:57 pm

Splendid review. I like my X41 too. I absolutely love the keyboard too. Far superior than that of T40,T41 and T43 that I used to own. Now I use my X41 as a main work horse. I just do not want to keep two any more.

As far as HD speed is concerned, it is not a problem at all. At home I have external HD and computation-intensive tasks are well handled. For normal use, like typing and web, I see no difference at all.

You are right, ZA firewall is not good for X41 as it incurs constant HD access. Kerio firewall is my choice.

I also have the intel 915 graphic card, I do not see any difference from the ATI card on my former T41. I am not gamer, except for occasional online Chess. So I cannot speak of Quake 4. I may pick up CS some time later though.

The 8 cell battery currently has 50 cycles on it and I can manage to get around 5 hours out of it. Pretty amazing for a 1.5G machine.

I currently have 768M RAM and 1G is on the way. 1.25G RAM might boost the performance a little bit. But even now, I am pretty satisfied.

asiafish · #3 Post by **asiafish** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:09 pm

I'm just waiting on the plate battery I ordered this morning. If I can get 8 hours with the 8-cell and the extended I'll be happy.

christopher_wolf · #4 Post by **christopher_wolf** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:29 pm

Really glad to hear you like your new X41 and your analysis of it. I suppose that the HDD was one of the reasons that IBM/Lenovo decided to go to a 2.5" form factor for the X6X Series.

K0LO · #5 Post by **K0LO** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:26 pm

Nice review, asiafish. I really like my X41 also. I have the tablet version and many of the same observations apply to it.

After living with this machine for a year, hard disk speed has turned out to not be a big issue for me. Comparing the laptop to a modern desktop machine with a 7200 rpm drive, on most standard office tasks the overall speed is limited by the hard drive performance. I've quantified this and find that the speed penalty is about 2:1. However, modern PCs are getting pretty fast, so that means that in day-to-day use, the following:

Start Windows (cold boot) -- 30 sec (desktop); 60 seconds (X41T)
Start Word (first time) -- 2 sec (desktop); 4 seconds (X41T)
Start Excel (first time) -- 3 sec (desktop); 6 seconds (X41T)
Start PowerPoint (first time) -- 2 sec (desktop); 4 seconds (X41T)

For a small, lightweight, battery powered portable machine, that's a reasonable compromise. Sure, a 7200 rpm hard drive would be nice but the 4200 rpm drive's performance is perfectly acceptable.

devilsrejection · #6 Post by **devilsrejection** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:24 pm

As much as I love my X40, I know it's going to struggle with Vista.

I can't wait till Intel launches the Santa Rosa platform in the first half of 2007 to get the updated X series.

They use 2.5 inch drives now [x60 and x60s] bow we just need the updated intel onboard graphics.

asiafish · #7 Post by **asiafish** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:37 pm

Why do we need updated graphics? The GMA900 on the X41 is fine, and the GMA950 on the X60/s is even better. What more do we need? The GMA950 is fully up to Vista's Aero Glass interface, though I've tried it and the first thing I did was configure Vista with the classic Windows 2000 look (just like I do to XP).

I want an X60s because of the hard drive capacity limit and for the integrated WWAN, the fact that there is no other compelling reason to upgrade is a big part of why I am so pleased with the X41 and will try to make this one a keeper (famous last words).

Honestly, while new computer lust and the lure of a bit of extra cash make things like an X60s hard to resist, I honestly will do my best. the X41 is already a terrific ultraportable, and for when I want more power and capacity I have my MacBook, which also makes a terrific Windows box.

On the subject of the MacBook, just came back from Apple yesterday and their inept service replaced the perfectly good hard drive but didn't fix the palmrest or the heat. To make matters worse they took the perfectly good touchpad button and made it non-functional. All this after a two-week wait for a backordered part.

I had a nice conversation with Customer Relations today and the end result is that they are sending me a brand-new, factory fresh MacBook and an extra battery to say they are sorry. We shall see.

asiafish · #8 Post by **asiafish** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:44 pm

devilsrejection wrote:As much as I love my X40, I know it's going to struggle with Vista.

I can't wait till Intel launches the Santa Rosa platform in the first half of 2007 to get the updated X series.

They use 2.5 inch drives now [x60 and x60s] bow we just need the updated intel onboard graphics.

Your X40 will do fine with Vista, just don't try to run Aero Glass, which your hardware doesn't support anyway. Except for the eye-candy (which I find annoying), you will get outstanding Vista performance from even the slowest X40.

devilsrejection · #9 Post by **devilsrejection** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:45 pm

asiafish wrote:Why do we need updated graphics? The GMA900 on the X41 is fine, and the GMA950 on the X60/s is even better. What more do we need? The GMA950 is fully up to Vista's Aero Glass interface, though I've tried it and the first thing I did was configure Vista with the classic Windows 2000 look (just like I do to XP).

I could care less what you want, I'm giving you my opinion.

When Vista goes RTM I'm sure this board will be swarming with user impressions of how it runs on the system.

Santa Rosa isn't just a new video card, it's a new chipset that unleashes the potential of the merom, as well as the new 802.11n wireless standard.

I use XP in classic mode as well, but I have a hunch vista just won't be the same without all that fancy ui nonsense.

then again i'm talking out of my [censored] because i haven't tried vista since the beta 1 days.

asiafish wrote:
devilsrejection wrote:As much as I love my X40, I know it's going to struggle with Vista.

I can't wait till Intel launches the Santa Rosa platform in the first half of 2007 to get the updated X series.

They use 2.5 inch drives now [x60 and x60s] bow we just need the updated intel onboard graphics.
Your X40 will do fine with Vista, just don't try to run Aero Glass, which your hardware doesn't support anyway. Except for the eye-candy (which I find annoying), you will get outstanding Vista performance from even the slowest X40.

Thanks for the assumption that you know me and my computing performance standards.

Vista is going to have a lot of features relating to file search and metadata. the hd is going to be accessed a lot, a whole lot, not to mention that 1gb probably isn't going to be as hot as i thought it was with XP.

Like I said, I'll see when Vista comes out, since neither you nor I know how vista rtm will act on our hardware.

asiafish · #10 Post by **asiafish** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:50 pm

devilsrejection wrote:
asiafish wrote:Why do we need updated graphics? The GMA900 on the X41 is fine, and the GMA950 on the X60/s is even better. What more do we need? The GMA950 is fully up to Vista's Aero Glass interface, though I've tried it and the first thing I did was configure Vista with the classic Windows 2000 look (just like I do to XP).
I could care less what you want, I'm giving you my opinion.

When Vista goes RTM I'm sure this board will be swarming with user impressions of how it runs on the system.

Santa Rosa isn't just a new video card, it's a new chipset that unleashes the potential of the merom, as well as the new 802.11n wireless standard.

I use XP in classic mode as well, but I have a hunch vista just won't be the same without all that fancy ui nonsense.

then again i'm talking out of my [censored] because i haven't tried vista since the beta 1 days.

asiafish wrote: Your X40 will do fine with Vista, just don't try to run Aero Glass, which your hardware doesn't support anyway. Except for the eye-candy (which I find annoying), you will get outstanding Vista performance from even the slowest X40.
Thanks for the assumption that you know me and my computing performance standards.

Vista is going to have a lot of features relating to file search and metadata. the hd is going to be accessed a lot, a whole lot, not to mention that 1gb probably isn't going to be as hot as i thought it was with XP.

Like I said, I'll see when Vista comes out, since neither you nor I know how vista rtm will act on our hardware.

Your right, you are talking out of your [censored].

devilsrejection · #11 Post by **devilsrejection** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:52 pm

So are you mate. so are you

I can't wait till Vista comes out tho, and that's something both you and I can agree on!

truce?

asiafish · #12 Post by **asiafish** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:53 pm

Absolutely. Beta 2 is actually quite nice except for the constant security nags.

devilsrejection · #13 Post by **devilsrejection** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:55 pm

Well I sold off all my computers while they were worth a [censored] so I can build a new gaming rig this fall/winter, my only machines are a T23 and this X40 I'm on right now, so I'm not going to be testing vista any time soon lol.

I'm going to be at CES in 2007 and when Bill Gates takes the stage I hope he announces the release date, that's all I want to hear, a solid release date.

christopher_wolf · #14 Post by **christopher_wolf** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:58 pm

devilsrejection wrote:Well I sold off all my computers while they were worth a [censored] so I can build a new gaming rig this fall/winter, my only machines are a T23 and this X40 I'm on right now, so I'm not going to be testing vista any time soon lol.

I'm going to be at CES in 2007 and when Bill Gates takes the stage I hope he announces the release date, that's all I want to hear, a solid release date.

Correction, January 2007

....Feburary 2007...No, wait....June 2007!

tvi55 · #15 Post by **tvi55** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:13 am

asiafish wrote: The lack of speed manifests itself most in cold boots.

Yes, boot time is quite a pain, but I do this very seldom now. My normal way to power off my X41 is to hibernate. I even assigned hibernation to the power off button. The only reason that I have had to reboot during the past months was the installation of Windows patches. So overall boot time is not an issue any longer for me. Restart from hibernation is about 50 sec until the windows logon screen appears.

asiafish · #16 Post by **asiafish** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:06 am

My resume from hibernate is much faster, perhaps 30 seconds at most, and thats with 1.5GB of RAM.

I usually hibernate as well, but there are times when a cold boot is necessary, like a full defrag (weekly).

K0LO · #17 Post by **K0LO** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:21 am

Yes, you can get these things to go much faster with a little work.

Cold boot -- 60 sec
Resume from hibernation -- 14 sec (1 GB RAM)
Resume from standby -- 3 sec

tvi55 · #18 Post by **tvi55** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:25 am

k0lo wrote:Yes, you can get these things to go much faster with a little work.

How, please?

K0LO · #19 Post by **K0LO** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:10 am

By doing a clean install of Windows XP followed by adding only some of the IBM software utilities.

I know that there were threads here recently disputing the difference between starting with a clean install and building up versus starting with the factory preload and slimming down. Some people claim that you can achieve the same end result either way. I couldn't. Starting with the factory preload I was only able to achieve 200 sec boot times. Starting with a clean install I was able to achieve 45 sec boot times with Windows only and 60 sec after adding applications and selected IBM software utilities.

YMMV. Perhaps it's only the X41T that acts this way. The factory preload is horrible; it takes 5 minutes to boot up. Maybe you can do it the other way around on an X41 and be successful. Windows XP should load faster than XP Tablet Edition.

If you're interested in details you can read my article for the X41 Tablet on TabletPCBuzz.com:
http://www.tabletpcbuzz.com/forum/topic ... C_ID=32497

devilsrejection · #20 Post by **devilsrejection** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:21 am

fresh install of xp

load up a usb key with the ethernet drivers and the software installer

install ethernet drivers, then install software installer

i install everything except the rescue and recover crap [i like my hd space, thank you very much]

then i install office then firefox

defrag

done

35 second boots, instant standby times, and i never hibernate so i can't comment on that one.

Grey Area · #21 Post by **Grey Area** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:29 am

For these purposes, how exactly would the boot time be measured? I find it a bit hard to tell when the computer is truly done, a there is still some loading to do after the desktop has appeared.

Björn

K0LO · #22 Post by **K0LO** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:35 am

Great question. Probably everybody measures it differently. I do not include the BIOS POST time in my measurement; just the time to start Windows. Also, I include the time interval after the desktop appears until all background processes have finished loading.

This is what I do:

1. Temporarily disable your Windows password so that login completes automatically.
2. Restart the PC.
3. When the Windows splash screen appears, start timing.
4. When the Windows desktop appears, bring up Task Manager (CTRL-ALT-DEL) and watch the CPU Usage.
5. Stop timing when the CPU Usage drops to idle.

asiafish · #23 Post by **asiafish** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:58 am

I include the POST time as well, as no matter what I have to wait for it, so it is a factor in how long my computer takes to use. I'm at 1:28 including POST and fingerprint approval, which is probably more like a minute or so without POST or authentication factored in.

I have the factory preload pared down.

asiafish · #24 Post by **asiafish** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:48 pm

devilsrejection wrote:Well I sold off all my computers while they were worth a [censored] so I can build a new gaming rig this fall/winter, my only machines are a T23 and this X40 I'm on right now, so I'm not going to be testing vista any time soon lol.

I'm going to be at CES in 2007 and when Bill Gates takes the stage I hope he announces the release date, that's all I want to hear, a solid release date.

Why not? Vista will run great on your X40 and might even surprise you on the T20, if it installs, it will run well. I have it running on a 750MHz Toshiba Portege 4000 and while slow to install and boot, runs about as well as XP does so long as I disable the eye-candy.

Xy Hapu · #25 Post by **Xy Hapu** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:56 pm

asiafish wrote:The lack of speed manifests itself most in cold boots, which prompted me to ditch Symantec Antivirus and ZoneAlarm Pro, two programs I’ve depended on for years, in the interest of faster booting.

Do you currently have no antivirus program installed? You could try the trial version of NOD32 at http://www.eset.com and see how much that adds to boot time, it has very little overhead and is generally considered one of the best antivirus programs.

asiafish · #26 Post by **asiafish** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:52 pm

I'm using AVG right now, which is much faster, and the Windows firewall, which is also fast.

#27 Post by **daeojkim** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:44 pm

Nice review asiafish.

The more I see a X4x series the more I want one. I know there are some issues with booting time, but it looks like one can go around it by hibernating and having an efficient Windows settings.

The X24 with HD and RAM upgrade that I have is really fast enough for all I need to do, except the 3 hour battery life, that does not come even close to 8 hours that X40 can muster.

Let's see what happens, I may go straight to X60 in a year or two.

The luster is so difficult to resist....

asiafish · #28 Post by **asiafish** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:53 pm

Yeah, I hear you. I absolutely love my X41, until I look at the 8 hour battery life and 2.5" hard drive on the X60s. I won't be upgrading, however, as the difference for the work I do is insignificant.

I've finally gotten my X41 set up to run for 6 hours on its 8 cell, with an additional 3 hours on the plate battery or the 4 cell, for a total of 9 hours before a battery swap, and 3 hours after. 9 hours actually translates into a lot more, as some of that time inevitably is spent either with the screen dim or on standbye.

Even with the plate battery (just arrived this morning), the X41 is still a trim and manageable package that is an absolute joy to work on.

Compared to X60s it also has a better keyboard with no Windows keys and if you are lucky (like I am) a Thai NMB instead of Chinese Chicony keyboard.

Whats strange is that I bought this as an adjunct to my 13.3" MacBook, which was to be my main system. That MacBook has spent most of its life at Apple support and has already been replaced with another defective unit that is going back. I'm very tempted to sell the next replacement without even opening it and just use the X41 as my only computer. Its not any strike against the MacBook design, which is outstanding if the issues are fixed, but rather how much I've come to like the X41.

If I do use the X41 as my primary machine, I'll buy a second X4 ultrabase for the office (mine stays home) and that way I'll have a full-featured laptop at both priimary locations, and the ultralight travel-monster everywhere else.

All-in-all, this is probably the best computer I've ever owned, at least for the way I like to use a laptop.

X41 review by a very picky user

X41 review by a very picky user

Re: X41 review by a very picky user

Re: X41 review by a very picky user

Who is online