Thinkpads Forum

I just got my X220 today and I must say, I am a bit disapponted. I think this is because I was spoiled by the excellent quality of the X60 and T60. Or maybe I was expecting too much out of it. I will start with the good things though, because I like to keep positive.

The Good:
- Keyboard. Absolute winner. I CANNOT use any other keyboard design on a laptop since I first used the Thinkpad keyboard.
- Red nipple on keyboard. <3
- Battery life. For half a day test, I like it. I did get the 9-cell though.
- Screen brightness (when on highest, I always do highest no matter what).
- Ports. VGA and displayport, 3 USBs (one yellow), something that looks like PCMCIA but I can't tell, and the express slot above yellow USB.

The Bad:
- The battery is loose toward lock #1, there is a 1mm-1.5mm gap when you push the battery or move it around. I think I can still carry it by the battery without worrying.
- The screen. I was expecting more from an IPS. Viewing angles are good, but I think the 16:9 standard kills the resolution. I am a 4:3 freak (T60 has QXGA wow) and I can d 16:10 OK (even though gone).
- The build does look somewhat cheap. Platic is sensed everywhere

I am going to keep it, as I said earlier, the keyboard won me. I cannot look at another notebook. I liked ASUS Zenbook, but keyboard is out of the question. And the air? Well... that's just way too overpriced for what it offers, also crappy keyboard.

bgalakazam wrote:- The screen. I was expecting more from an IPS. Viewing angles are good, but I think the 16:9 standard kills the resolution. I am a 4:3 freak (T60 has QXGA wow) and I can d 16:10 OK (even though gone).

In my humble opinion, stating 16:9 is an inferior resolution than 4:3 or also 16:10 is pure non-information without giving the actual resolution details. This statement only describes the relation between vertical and horizontal size of a rectangular area, but without stating the actual amount of pixels this has no informational value at all.

In my humble opionion, a 16:10 resolution of 1280x800 or better 1440x900 is always very much more convenient than 4:3 1024x768 at any DPI value. Up until this point you probably would also half ways agree. And you would probably also fully agree that 16:9 1366x768 at whatever DPI is no real improvement over 4:3 1024x768, as it is the same crappy vertical screen height. But then again, 16:9 1600x900 or even 1920x1080 are a definite improvement over 4:3 1024x768 regarding vertical screen screen space.

While i do prefer sticking to my T61+ (T61 14" mainboard with T9500 CPU in a T60 15" casing) which has a 4:3 UXGA IPS display with 1600x1200 resolution with still enough 133,33 DPI for the details to not become too tiny (WUXGA+ with 1920x1200 at 147 DPI on a 16:10 T61p or T500 would be alreay too much for my aged eyes), i would much prefer any 16:9 display with more vertical pixels over any kind of 4:3 1024x768 abdomination. For me, the main disadvantage of 16:9 is only then given, when the vertical screen height is not at all improved. I usually prefer any screen with the highest possible vertical pixel amount, regardless of form factor.

I still consider 4:3 SXGA+ with 1400x1050 too be most convenient, as the added horizontal pixels of any 16:x are of no real value for me and just add to make the machine dimensions too bulky for comfortable transportation. But as transportation consumes only a negligible fraction of 1% of the actual usage of the machine, even this can be considered a non-argument.

rumbero wrote:In my humble opinion, stating 16:9 is an inferior resolution than 4:3 or also 16:10 is pure non-information without giving the actual resolution details.

It depends on how the user utilizes the pixels. For example, for someone who always views PDF or Word documents at whole-page zoom, physical height is much more important than vertical pixel number. So, 4:3 would be better than 16:9 regardless of resolution. In fact, 5:4 would be even better, e.g. the 15.4" 1280x1024 screen of the Dell Inspiron 7500 that I just bought.

bgalakazam wrote:- The build does look somewhat cheap. Platic is sensed everywhere

Huh? Part of the chassis is made of plastic, but not really any more than previous models...

I agree that X220 isn't so amazing but if you want the selectric styled keyboard with ~3lb weight, X220 is the only game. If and when the selectric keyboards are gone, then there is no reason to buy thinkpads at that point.

pianowizard wrote:
It depends on how the user utilizes the pixels. For example, for someone who always views PDF or Word documents at whole-page zoom, physical height is much more important than vertical pixel number. So, 4:3 would be better than 16:9 regardless of resolution. In fact, 5:4 would be even better, e.g. the 15.4" 1280x1024 screen of the Dell Inspiron 7500 that I just bought.

As someone who abuses Windows 7 "snap" feature, I actually now prefer the 16:9 monitor I have after putting off buying one for so long. For what work I do, being able to have 2 documents/spreadsheets/webpages open side by side and fitted perfectly is awesome. I do this on a 21.5" screen though, and can imagine it not working as well on a smaller laptop screen.

sanjuro wrote:selectric styled keyboard with ~3lb weight, X220 is the only game. If and when the selectric keyboards are gone, then there is no reason to buy thinkpads at that point.

Apart from solid Linux support, good value, and clean looks, yes. (Sarcasm aside, I value consistent hardware designs, good Linux/BSD support, and a utilitarian, no-flash design way more than a specific keyboard feel.... although I do hate must ultra-short-throw "chiclet" designs.)

And none of the ThinkPads have a keyboard that feels anything like a Selectric.

Atreides wrote:As someone who abuses Windows 7 "snap" feature, I actually now prefer the 16:9 monitor I have after putting off buying one for so long. For what work I do, being able to have 2 documents/spreadsheets/webpages open side by side and fitted perfectly is awesome. I do this on a 21.5" screen though, and can imagine it not working as well on a smaller laptop screen.

I was talking about laptops, not desktop monitors. Also, I was not talking about myself, but about certain users who always view windows/documents full-screen. For desktop monitors, I much prefer 16:10 over square screens. 16:9 is okay if the res is at least 2048x1152. I have a 21.5" 1920x1080 screen and find it somewhat restrctive. Three of my 1920x1200 monitors are rotated into portrait mode, so I have both wide and tall screens. Look at my signature: almost all my monitors are 16:10 or 16:9.

bgalakazam, can you tell me more about the IPS screen? That was the main reason that I was going to buy the x220. it is the only screen in the TH line that has the IPS screen anymore that I can think of I think. Is it not that good? I was just going to pull the trigger on one but I held off because of your post.

Thanks

My only complaint is the battery and not its run time but how it sticks out the back and has a seam that while not sharp has an edge to it. Feels cheap. Otherwise, this is a very well built machine.

I like the 9cell battery. It's a nice handle whether closed or open.

I like the screen, because it's not glossy. Don't expect a UXGA or QXGA quality, though. I think it's the resolution that's the problem, not the screen itself. It's bright and nice, and like you said, the only IPS option.