Thinkpads Forum

epbrown wrote:I'm with OMF, likely because I've similarly chased the lowest-weight laptop for years, starting with the IBM 500 up to my current Sony TZ. I'd say that under 4lbs is a subnotebook, while under 3lbs is an ultraportable.

There's no recognized standard, so we're each left to make up our own definitions, which we can debate endlessly. I like my cut-off points firm and clearly defined, so I tend to use 1lb increments. (Under 2lbs - UMPC, btw).

It make sense to you, because you use pounds. Pounds make no sense to many people (myself among them). I would make my cutoff 1.5kg if I had to.

epbrown wrote:I see where you're coming from in your definitions, but I disagree. To me, two pounds if a pretty large fricking range to lump everything in with

When it comes to choosing a laptop for my own use, I too use 3 lb as the cutoff: I refuse to carry any laptop weighing over 3 lb continuously for several hours or more. This is something I've said at least five times on this forum.

But when I assign defintions to terms, I try to be objective. I think most (but, obviously, not all) people find anything lighter than 4 lb to be light enough, and like I said, IBM/Lenovo and CNet do draw the line at 4 lb. Actually, I mispoke when I said I defined "ultraportable" as 2 - 4 lb. I forgot about the Sony X505 and the Toshiba R500, both of which are under 2 lb. I consider both to be "ultraportable". So, I should define the term as "any laptop with a full-sized or nearly full-sized keyboard that weighs 4 lb or less". By this definition, the HP Jornada 720 and the Asus Eee PC aren't "ultraportable".

pianowizard wrote:When it comes to choosing a laptop for my own use, I too use 3 lb as the cutoff: I refuse to carry any laptop weighing over 3 lb continuously for several hours or more. This is something I've said at least five times on this forum.

you'd hate my camera.   it's 4.15 lbs with my lightest lens mounted.

besides, this thread was supposed to be about the OP's review of the X300 -- not a discussion about weights, what defines a subnotebook, and what one finds as an acceptable carry weight.   there is an X300 weight thread started already.   perhaps discussing this subject there or in the off-topic forum would be better.

http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=58249

RaysMD wrote:So is the screen really that bad?

I don't think it's "bad" at all. It simply isn't as good, in terms of contrast and viewing angle, as that on the Sony TX/TZ series.

Keep in mind that there's no other laptop I know of that has a 13.3" 1440x900 LCD. That's a huge positive on the X300's side in my book.

With such a high price tag, I just thought it was important to point out the laptop's negatives along with its positives.

Lenovo is outsourcing displays for thinkpad X300 from Samsung (even though service parts page doesn't mention it, yet) and TMD, I've seen two X300's with both displays and IMO comparatively the former is far inferior in all aspects of a good TN screen than the latter, not being harsh on Samsung or anything but I'm yet to see a decent display from them.

I've lived with the X300 for 6 days. I find the screen comparable in terms of color to my T42p and T61p , the bug bonus appears to be that I can run the brightness down at 1/3, I always had it maxed on the T42p and T61p.

I'm getting pretty good battery life, of maybe 5.5 -> 6 hours, the battery gauge is showing 3 and a bit hours at 50% when I log off in the evening. I don't do any heavy lifting on the X300, primarily it's a GotoMyPC client. The screen resolution in the small form factor (and light weight, and very cool and quiet) make it a great choice from my perspective

ddignam wrote:I'm getting pretty good battery life, of maybe 5.5 -> 6 hours, the battery gauge is showing 3 and a bit hours at 50% when I log off in the evening. I don't do any heavy lifting on the X300, primarily it's a GotoMyPC client. The screen resolution in the small form factor (and light weight, and very cool and quiet) make it a great choice from my perspective

Are you using a 6-cell or 3-cell battery?

I'll just add some of my own impressions after using the X300 for 5 days (so it's still all a bit preliminary).

--- Screen. Very nice, in my opinion. Great resolution, crisp and sharp (1440 x 900 is a huge improvement over 1280 x 800). Mine had no dead/stuck pixels of any kind. I don't have any previous thinkpads handy to compare with, but the backlit X300 screen does seem significantly brighter (especially when it's on ac power, where the max brightness is quite a bit brighter than the max brightness on battery power). I tried omf's RBG color setting (sort of a gray) and didn't see any shimmering, so maybe that's a specific issue with his unit. I agree that the vertical viewing angle is a bit narrow, but it's more than wide enough for one user. On contrast, I haven't used Sony's, so I can believe that their screens have higher contrast, but the X300 screen seems fine to me.

--- Keyboard. Is very good, as you'd expect, though if anything I liked the feel of my old X41's keyboard better (it was a bit "clickier" and less "elastic" than the X300's, if that makes any sense).

--- Build quality. Is just outstanding. The overall feel and finish is like Thinkpad^2. Though I haven't actually used any other 13.3" laptops, I looked at a number of them in stores. In my opinon, the Dell XPS 1330 or Sony SZ laptops, say, don't compare in build quality with the X300 (even if they have stronger graphics capability). The Macbook air might be close (and it feels slightly lighter) but that's a whole different story.

--- Weight. My unit (with 6 cell battery, DVD burner, full connectivity options) is 3.36 pounds. So it's light, but it does have a little heft to it. Without arguing definitions (!), someone who is looking for the lightest, most portable notebook might find the X300 a bit too heavy. I think the main part of the +3lb weight is the 6 cell battery (the batteryless notebook itself feels really light), but in my opinion you wouldn't want to use the 3-cell.

--- Battery life. Is ok, but not phenomenal. I've been getting somewhere around 3 hrs (maybe slightly less) from one charge of the 6-cell battery under normal use (internet, word processing etc.) with wireless (or WWAN) and bluetooth on and screen set to maximum brightness. I expect it would go quite a bit longer with lower brightness. The 6-cell battery is very unobtrusive. It's a fatter version of the 3-cell and sits under the palmrest. When it's installed, the front of the machine sits on rubber feet on the battery, so it's slightly raised, but the notebook doesn't slope up at all and it's perfectly comfortable to type.

--- Noise and Heat. The fan comes on fairly frequently, but it's not at all loud. The DVD drive makes some noise and the silence of the hard drive is a bit spooky. The machine stays very cool and comfortable.

--- SSD. Ok it's ridiculously expensive, but I also have to say it's ridiculously nice. I probably wouldn't have bought one if I had the choice, but now I have it I'm converted (64 GB isn't a lot of storage, but it's enough for my needs). The whole machine feels very snappy and responsive (much more so than an X41, for example): probably the SSD is a good part of the reason, and I guess the 1.2 GHz processor is plenty fast enough.

--- Connectivity. The main problem I have here is trying to manage all the different possible connections. I'm still not quite sure what's the best way to switch between WWAN and WLAN is, for example. The small display lights next to the ThinkVantage key at the top of the keyboard are nice and immediately show what radio connections are on (with Fn + F5 to toggle them). I'm still on my one-week Verizon trial period, and I plan to sign up with them, but rather irritatingly the only automatic options for sign-up on the notebook itself were the one-week trial and a two-year contract (it didn't give Verizon's one-year contract option; all the cell phone companies are crooks). I've also been using a bluetooth mouse, and it's been extremely responsive with no noticable "lag".

--- DVD drive. These thin slot drives seem very fragile to me, but I hope that's my imagination. It makes some brief ratchety sounds when the machine starts up or you put in a disc (guess that must be normal, I hope) and a pretty quiet but audible whirring sound when it's running. DVD movies look very nice. (I'm running "Conan the Barbarian" as I write this post.)

--- Speakers. They're pretty good for such a small notebook and the stereo speakers on the left right corners of the front look nice, but don't expect any great audio quality.

--- Touchpad. I haven't had any issues with accidentally brushing it while typing that some people have had (perhaps because I'm a bad typist and don't put my hands on the middle of the palmrest).

--- Gaming. Although the X300, or the X3100 integrated graphics, is not for gaming, I'm with Russ on this one. I tried one recent 3d-game, Hellgate:London, and was a bit surprised to find that it would run at all. With all settings on low except for medium model details, and 1280 x 800 resolution I got 11-15 fps in open areas and up to about 25 fps in more enclosed areas. I'm not sure you would enjoy playing at those settings and fps, but it would be possible.

ryengineer wrote:Lenovo is outsourcing displays for thinkpad X300 from Samsung (even though service parts page doesn't mention it, yet) and TMD, I've seen two X300's with both displays and IMO comparatively the former is far inferior in all aspects of a good TN screen than the latter, not being harsh on Samsung or anything but I'm yet to see a decent display from them.

I was curious about this, so I checked PC Wizard and found that the panel in my X300 is a TMD LTD133EQ1B. I searched Google for stuff starting with LTD133E and found several other TMD screens that are being used in the Sony SZ series:

LTD133EX2Y
LTD133EX2K
LTD133EX2X
LTD133EX2A
LTD133EXBX

Only the last of these is LED-backlit.

Anyway, since these are all made by TMD, I'd expect similar quality between the Sony SZ and Lenovo X300 displays. The only major difference (besides the resolution, which is 1280x800 on those listed above) is that the ones Sony has been using are high-contrast, high-gloss models.

omf wrote:the ones Sony has been using are high-contrast, high-gloss models.

I haven't owned many laptops with glossy screens (only two, the Dell 700m and the Sony K23) but have played with quite a few at Best Buy, Staples, Sony Style, etc., and my impression is that most if not all of them have better contrast and colors than the non-Flexview matte screens used on Thinkpads. I hope Lenovo will start offering glossy screens soon. I don't mean using such screens exclusively because some people hate them, but offering them optionally.

Thecla wrote:I tried omf's RBG color setting (sort of a gray) and didn't see any shimmering, so maybe that's a specific issue with his unit.

Just when I was starting to think it was a one-time fluke, the shimmering came back a few minutes ago! I wish I could capture it in a picture, but I doubt it'll show up.

I guess I'll have to send for a replacement after all.

Thecla wrote:I think the main part of the +3lb weight is the 6 cell battery (the batteryless notebook itself feels really light), but in my opinion you wouldn't want to use the 3-cell.

I opted for the 3-cell battery, since I figured I could always upgrade if the battery life was too short. Despite my desire to keep the weight down to 3 pounds, I find the 3-cell life a bit too short. I doubt I could get more than 2 hours out of it.

It's amazing how little there is to that 3-cell battery, though. It's hard to believe there's any room in that thing for much beyond the plastic casing itself.

i opted for the 3-cell as well since i have the new lenovo slim ac/dc adapter to use on flights, in the car, or while out on business if necessary.   if it does need to go untethered then i can pick up a 6-cell and/or bay battery later (probably the bay battery).

omf wrote:

ddignam wrote:I'm getting pretty good battery life, of maybe 5.5 -> 6 hours, the battery gauge is showing 3 and a bit hours at 50% when I log off in the evening. I don't do any heavy lifting on the X300, primarily it's a GotoMyPC client. The screen resolution in the small form factor (and light weight, and very cool and quiet) make it a great choice from my perspective

Are you using a 6-cell or 3-cell battery?

I'm using the 6-cell. I haven't ran it all the way down yet. So I may be extrapolating too much. It starts out at 4+ hours on 100%, but is still saying 3+ hours when I get down to 50%

erik wrote:i opted for the 3-cell as well since i have the new lenovo slim ac/dc adapter to use on flights, in the car, or while out on business if necessary.   if it does need to go untethered then i can pick up a 6-cell and/or bay battery later (probably the bay battery).

Is the new slim adapter much "slimmer" than the 65W included in the box? What about weight - lighter?

jamess wrote:Is the new slim adapter much "slimmer" than the 65W included in the box? What about weight - lighter?

i just answered this question in this thread: http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=59037

thanks.

omf wrote: Again, this is in comparison to my Sony TX, which I've stared at for many hours the last couple of years. Blacks on the X300 are washed-out and colors don't have the punch they do on the TX. The vertical viewing angle is definitely narrower on the X300: there's an obvious "sweet spot" you have to stay in to get the best image.

I don't think the X300's screen is bad - it just doesn't match up to Sony's above-average screens. I expect a pretty awesome screen for more than $2,600, though.

The shimmering is a problem. It's only obvious on certain colors, but it's definitely there. I first noticed it in a particular image on a web page, and I've since found a specific color that shows-off the issue easily: an RGB value of 103,103,93.

It may be a driver issue, although I played with all the options in the Intel control panel, and nothing has affected the shimmering.

For the record, I haven't installed any additional software on this machine since I received it. I have applied all current Windows/Office/Lenovo updates, however.

Hi omf,
coming from a Sony TZ11 i can feel your pain about the screen quality... I am also not really pleased by the quality.

Having mentioned the washed out black and greys, what settings do you use (contrast, brightness, gamma, ...) in the intel tool?

I played around a lot and still am not pleased!

Thanks for a feedback!

pianowizard wrote:I hope Lenovo will start offering glossy screens soon. I don't mean using such screens exclusively because some people hate them, but offering them optionally.

I can't imagine that because Lenovo has given the lowest priority to the screen quality. When IPS based panels were gone they said it was because there were only one supplier. The X300 screen is made by one supplier as well http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site. ... MIGR-69406 . I don't believe they care about quality longer. Cutting the costs is the reason together with no competition regarding notebook screens, nothing else. As long as it was possible to made perfect notebook screen five years ago, it must be possible know.

Puppy wrote:The X300 screen is made by one supplier as well

two suppliers; TMD and samsung.   (not that it makes any difference as neither compare to IPS or sony's xbrite panels)

cantona2k wrote: Having mentioned the washed out black and greys, what settings do you use (contrast, brightness, gamma, ...) in the intel tool?

Actually, I haven't played with the Intel settings, yet. Given your comments, I don't have much hope that they'll make a significant difference, though.

Another observation about this move from the TX/TZ to the X300: I'm finding the X300's larger keyboard and its greater key movement a bit hard to adjust to! After so much time on the Sony, I'm very used to its compact layout and 'shallow' keys!