X200 disappointment

Message

wibbler23 · #31 Post by **wibbler23** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:03 pm

It's clearly a lack of choice that's annoying most x61 users in relation to the x200. Lenovo along with other maunfacturers appear to be limiting the end options to users e.g. wide or standard display. I guess the bottom dollar with production costs is all that counts these days.

Supermans · #32 Post by **Supermans** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:38 pm

artic_squirrel wrote:for me the greatest flaw of the x61 is the temp

the palm rest is really really hot and i don't even use the wireless card

what an idea to put it just under your hand !

the keyboard is usable, but a larger one is quite sweet

and the 2cm in width are not a crime too

You gain more viewing space with the X200 vertically because it has a higher resolution.. The X200 is a faster more modern machine than the X300.. The only advantage the X300 has over the X200 is the optical drive, howev er the X200 has more ports and connections..

naus · #33 Post by **naus** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:32 pm

Count me in as another one of the disappointed.

The bezel on the X200 (12.1", 1280x800) is HUGE, making it about the same footprint as the Sony Z (13.1", 1600x900).

X200 dimensions: 29.5cm W x 21cm D x 2.07-3.2cm H (with the 4 cell battery), weight 2.95-3.7 lbs (with 4 to 9 cell battery)
Sony Z dimensions: 31.4cm W x 21cm D x 2.4-3.3cm H (with standard 6 cell battery), weight 3.4 lbs (with 6 cell battery)
Battery life of the two are going to be about the same.

The X200 obviously seems like less bang for your footprint compared to the Sony (smaller screen, lower resolution, no optical drive). The Sony also has hybrid graphics, 100% color saturation, HDMI and carbon fiber casing. If money weren't an issue, the Z is clearly a better product.

sparta.rising · #34 Post by **sparta.rising** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:26 pm

But you are sacrificing HUGE build quality and reliability with a Vaio laptop. And I wouldn't say carbon fiber is desirable over the X200's magnesium alloy cover.

The Latitude E4300 however...
http://www.dell.com/content/products/pr ... l=en&s=biz
Traditionally dell's have a terrible reputation, but their build quality on the business side has been improving drastically with the last 2 generations of Latitude. The design reminds me a lot more of my T43 and the 600X than what's currently lined up to be offered. The big test will be the quality of its "precision tuned backlit keyboard"

stalepie · #35 Post by **stalepie** » Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:03 pm

How can you tell how strong it is just by looking at it? Wouldn't it be a better idea to drop it on the floor, or punch it, or spill some coffee on it?

naus · #36 Post by **naus** » Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:09 pm

sparta.rising wrote:But you are sacrificing HUGE build quality and reliability with a Vaio laptop. And I wouldn't say carbon fiber is desirable over the X200's magnesium alloy cover.

The Thinkpad X300 is also carbon fiber. In fact, the $800 cheaper Sony SR series uses magnesium alloy, while the Z series uses carbon fiber. Carbon fiber is very very strong and light. My road bike is carbon fiber and I abuse it like hell.

Sony products generally come in two classes: consumer and premium classes. The Vaio Z (as well as Premium SZ and TZ) are premium class products. They are made in Japan and have stricter quality control than their made in China/Thailand/Mexico products. So I don't think the difference is THAT huge. I appreciate Thinkpad's build quality a lot, but the high-end Vaio's are comparable.

I wouldn't buy an R- or SL-series Thinkpad either.

sparta.rising · #37 Post by **sparta.rising** » Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:58 pm

From an IT perspective, I've seen very expensive Vaios bought that were complete crap (is that word allowed on this forum?).

From an engineering perspective, carbon fiber has gives and takes. Its very strong, but only monodirectionally. By crossing the fibers, you gain bidirectional strength. When rolled into a tube like in your bicycle, the crosshatch does a great job at giving strength to the tube. It can also crack because it is only cloth held together with epoxy (plastic resin). My carbon fiber tent poles are very light and have good strength, but the ends are cracked. Now, when its laying flat, like in a cover, if you pulled the sides of that sheet, it would be very strong, but I don't see how its that desirable as a laptop cover? I know plastic covers crack from pressure, but I can't say I've seen magnesium allow crack. I've seen it chipped, but I've seen that with carbon fiber as well. Carbon fiber has opened some amazing engineering possibilities, but in applications like this I think its only being used because it sounds "cool" and "cutting edge" and expensive. I'm not saying its a bad thing, I just don't count it as a positive that the X200 lacks.

obpsym · #38 Post by **obpsym** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:42 am

Well I bit the bullet.

There is a comparison shot showing an X61, X200 and an X300 on top of one another. The X200 is not a subnotebook in my eyes. The X61 is! Link: http://www.notebookreview.com/assets/34766.jpg

In fact, looking at the dimensions, why does it not have a built in DVDRW, it sure is long and thick enough. About 10 square inches of volume more than the X61 (rough guestimate)

Anyway, I purchased a new X61 on Thursday, T8300 2.4Ghz, 4G RAM, 250G drive, 4 Cell Enhanced battery, Ultrabase with DVD-RW and spent a few hours installing W2K8. It's nice and snappy, cheap, heat is fine.

People complain about the crappy 12.1" screens because of the resolution but you have to remember it's the size that counts.

X61
Dimensions:

* Width: 10.58"
* Depth: 8.35”
* Height: 1.41"

X200
# Dimensions (with large 9-cell battery in):

* Width: 11.61 inches
* Depth: 9.2 inches
* Thickness: 0.8-in - 1.4 inches

# Dimensions (with small 4-cell battery in):

* Width: 11.6 inches
* Depth: 8.3 inches
* Thickness: 0.8 - 1.4"

Blackhold · #39 Post by **Blackhold** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 1:15 pm

I'm waiting for x200 in spain, to have a laptop without cd drive is not really a trouble...

Meantime, the only is used for my cd drive is for install operating systems or programs, for the rest of actions I use network.

I also will buy an ultrabase to could have more usb ports, cd drive and some things more, but I think I will leave it at home to have less weight when travelling.

stickman · #40 Post by **stickman** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:49 pm

Blackhold wrote:I'm waiting for x200 in spain, to have a laptop without cd drive is not really a trouble...

Another Spanish here

I'm a long time advocate for the thinkpad line. I've owned a X31 for some years now and I'm having a hard time deciding between X61t and X200.

I love the new specs for the X200, but I don't think it's as ultraportable as the X61. I suppose I'll have to see one in my hands to be sure.[/quote]

Supermans · #41 Post by **Supermans** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:22 am

stickman wrote:
Blackhold wrote:I'm waiting for x200 in spain, to have a laptop without cd drive is not really a trouble...
Another Spanish here

I'm a long time advocate for the thinkpad line. I've owned a X31 for some years now and I'm having a hard time deciding between X61t and X200.

I love the new specs for the X200, but I don't think it's as ultraportable as the X61. I suppose I'll have to see one in my hands to be sure.

[/quote]

I'll be able to let you know next week as soon as this baby shows up..

naus · #42 Post by **naus** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:11 pm

obpsym wrote:The X200 is not a subnotebook in my eyes. The X61 is! Link: http://www.notebookreview.com/assets/34766.jpg

I actually prefer the X200's dimensions over the X61, it fits over my lap better. I sit down with my legs slightly spread, so the wider dimensions are better. The X61 is a bit awkward to put on my lap.

Supermans · #43 Post by **Supermans** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:06 am

naus wrote:
obpsym wrote:The X200 is not a subnotebook in my eyes. The X61 is! Link: http://www.notebookreview.com/assets/34766.jpg
I actually prefer the X200's dimensions over the X61, it fits over my lap better. I sit down with my legs slightly spread, so the wider dimensions are better. The X61 is a bit awkward to put on my lap.

Fitting over the lap better is a huge advantage the X200 has over the X61 which I have used before. The full size keyboard makes it even better if you are typing a lot with it on your lap.. I agree that the X61 is slightly smaller looking however the X200 does fall under the same ultra portable category and it should...

edinburghphoto · #44 Post by **edinburghphoto** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:29 pm

pxa270 wrote: I hate the big black rim around the X200 screen:
http://www.notebookreview.com/assets/34779.jpg

I agree. I like the idea of a higher resolution option but lenovo seem to have taken the predictable widescreen route in order to compete on spec with the mainstream manufacturers.

Just looking a the image of the X61 and X200 side by side and the proportions of the X61 are just about perfect, no wasted space, the LCD seems to mirror the footprint of the keyboard, mouse buttons and palm rest almost perfectly. The X200 on the other hand is bigger, yet the LCD seems way too small for the back panel. Sure, Lenovo need to make a profit but developing a bespoke LCD shouldn't be beyond them. I thought the X300 was well polished product and had great hopes for the X200. I must say, I'm a little disappointed!

vim_commando · #45 Post by **vim_commando** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:13 pm

It seems that when comparing the X300 to the X200 some of you miss the fact that the X300 runs at 1440x900 and not 1280x800. That alone is a huge plus in my book, as I like having the extra resolution.

As far as the X200 itself goes, I think the lack of options will get better as time goes on. In designing the X200, it looks like they didn't want to do much new--Lenovo already put a bunch of R&D money into making the X300. You can see this cost-saving design in the screen/keyboard selection, which directly effected the wide bezel width.

The screen is a very common 12.1" wide-screen at 1280x800. Lenovo obviously didn't want to make some off-beat size or unusual DPI to keeps costs low. This itself is not surprising, I think the sad part was the reliance on using the same keyboard from the T60. It is nice to see a "full size" keyboard on a notebook this small. However, this required a minimum width wider than the screen, and they were lazy and just filled in the difference with a wide bezel. You can see how the keyboard is wider than the screen here: http://reviews.digitaltrends.com/review ... conclusion

Not to mention they left space for a built-in web-cam.

If they had re-designed a keyboard for the X200, it would have come out looking a lot nicer, but the functionality would not be any different. Yes, I think it is less pleasing to the eye than the X61, but it is a nice laptop none the less.

Supermans · #46 Post by **Supermans** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:34 am

vim_commando wrote: I think the sad part was the reliance on using the same keyboard from the T60. It is nice to see a "full size" keyboard on a notebook this small. However, this required a minimum width wider than the screen, and they were lazy and just filled in the difference with a wide bezel.

I don't see how you can view having a full-size keyboard as a "sad part" or that Lenovo builders were lazy?Tha main reason behind using existing parts was to keep the cost down. The X300 has a larger screen and optical drive, however it is also more expensive by $400 and has a weaker processor while the X301 is $1,200 more and still weaker processor with only 800mhz fsb, a slightly larger screen, optical drive and touchpad while the X200's CPU is more efficient and runs at 1066mhz. I do agree the X301 is a nicer machine overall, but until the price comes down, the X200 is still the price/ performance leader in this segment.

Before Lenovo gets rid of the X300, it is now a good time to buy after lowering the price due to the release of the X301.. The X200 now comes out more expensive if you upgrade the SSD which comes standard with the X300. This is something to think about if you really want an SSD. However the X200 is still cheaper and faster if you don't need the SSD upgrade.

X200
Intel Core2 Duo processor P8600 (2.40GHz, 3MB L2, 1066MHz FSB)

X300
Intel Core 2 Duo SL7100 (1.2GHz, 4MB L2, 800MHz FSB)

X301
Intel Core 2 Duo SU9400(1.4GHz, 3MB L2, 800MHz FSB)

defatpm · #47 Post by **defatpm** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:02 pm

I had a lot of these concerns before purchasing X200.

Once it came in the mail.....I really was impressed.

It is very light, the "thickness variation" is almost necessary, otherwise it would just seem non-existent. It looks MUCH thicker in the pictures online! Windows Vista Business was surprisingly faster than pre-loaded XP Pro. The screen brightness is more than adequate! I find my self squinting when it is on full brightness.

I was really excited about this unit until a lot of X60 owners started hating on it! Once it arrived I was pleasantly surprised. It has the footprint of "The Economist" magazine turned horizontal.....it fits on top almost perfectly (X200 is slightly 'wider' but nevertheless it is basically a 3lb magazine)

Just letting the disappointed people know that (at least for me) this unit is a winner.

PaulO · #48 Post by **PaulO** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:09 am

defatpm wrote: Windows Vista Business was surprisingly faster than pre-loaded XP Pro.

I am surprised by this. I thought Vista was supposed to be slower, especially booting. I was planning to order an X200 with the XP downgrade. (I also don't want a lot of hassles with tracking down drivers, having incompatible software, etc.). In your opinion, is the XP downgrade a mistake?

Supermans · #49 Post by **Supermans** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:34 am

PaulO wrote:
defatpm wrote: Windows Vista Business was surprisingly faster than pre-loaded XP Pro.
I am surprised by this. I thought Vista was supposed to be slower, especially booting. I was planning to order an X200 with the XP downgrade. (I also don't want a lot of hassles with tracking down drivers, having incompatible software, etc.). In your opinion, is the XP downgrade a mistake?

I think the downgrade is a mistake in my opinion. I would even go as far to say get Vista Basic for $50 less and use that as an upgrade to the processor which is also a $50 upgrade. If you need the business features then go with Vista Business, however it all depends what you will be using the laptop for and if you need the extra's..

Supermans · #50 Post by **Supermans** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:36 am

defatpm wrote:I had a lot of these concerns before purchasing X200.

Once it came in the mail.....I really was impressed.

It is very light, the "thickness variation" is almost necessary, otherwise it would just seem non-existent. It looks MUCH thicker in the pictures online! Windows Vista Business was surprisingly faster than pre-loaded XP Pro. The screen brightness is more than adequate! I find my self squinting when it is on full brightness.

I was really excited about this unit until a lot of X60 owners started hating on it! Once it arrived I was pleasantly surprised. It has the footprint of "The Economist" magazine turned horizontal.....it fits on top almost perfectly (X200 is slightly 'wider' but nevertheless it is basically a 3lb magazine)

Just letting the disappointed people know that (at least for me) this unit is a winner.

Thanks for this post, I too can't understand how some people could be disappointed with this laptop.

ThinkBento · #51 Post by **ThinkBento** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:32 pm

PaulO wrote:
defatpm wrote: Windows Vista Business was surprisingly faster than pre-loaded XP Pro.
I am surprised by this. I thought Vista was supposed to be slower, especially booting. I was planning to order an X200 with the XP downgrade. (I also don't want a lot of hassles with tracking down drivers, having incompatible software, etc.). In your opinion, is the XP downgrade a mistake?

I ordered the downgrade and the unit shipped with recovery discs fro Vista Business. The package insert said this was intentional.

So I think you are ok to order the downgrade, to try it, and free to upgrade to vista if you prefer.

However, you must either order the dock, or have an external cd drive to create an xp recovery disc, or else you will lose it when you apply the vista upgrade.

vim_commando · #52 Post by **vim_commando** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:47 pm

Supermans wrote: I don't see how you can view having a full-size keyboard as a "sad part" or that Lenovo builders were lazy? The main reason behind using existing parts was to keep the cost down.

The "sad part" was that function trumped form, and when opened up, the X200 doesn't have quite the same visual appeal as the X61. I do like the keyboard size, and I recognize the wide bezel was a necessity because of new design decisions, I just don't like it's appearance as much.

The lazy part was re-using they keyboard over making a new one. I fully understand why, it both costs less and takes less time to reuse something that already works. Honestly, I really wish companies would do it more often--when they hit on a good thing. I can't figure for the life of me why the likes of Asus and all the other "Netbook" makers (Lenovo included with the S10) insist upon using postage-stamp sized track pads when a TrackPoint will take up less space and provide better control.

I definitely don't hate on the X200, I think it is a great product and fills a good spot in Lenovo's product line. If I had the budget for an X200/X300, my hand would tip more toward the X300. Only because the higher resolution screen would make a bigger difference to me than the faster CPU. Web design and programming work only require so much horsepower, but extra screen real estate is always welcome. I miss my WUXGA screen

In the meantime, if anyone is upgrading from an X31/X32, I might be in the market

midknightr · #53 Post by **midknightr** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:58 am

Seriously how long is this marketing brainwash going to last!? I have multiple computers (laptops, desktops, at both home and in my lab). Some have XP, a couple Macs (silly people who want to use macs

), and some vista (oh and one linux for a special program). I know why Vista got bad press (apple wanted it that way and as usual the OS wasn't quite polished yet - as all OSes that run on multiple hardware platforms have to do). How can people continue to regurgitate the same old senseless fears of Vista when they haven't even used it? I've had fewer problems with Vista than I ever had with XP, or OSX for that matter. As the computer nerd in our lab I constantly hear people who know nothing bash Vista, I just want to slap them. And the stupid Apple-I'm a mac, I'm a PC commercials were a little funny at first, but they are stupid and just insulting now - with outright lies in them. It's sickening.

ahhh, I feel better. BTW, although the Mojave commercial campaign is spot on with what they are saying, I have to admit I hate its execution (perhaps they should just treat their audience like idiots and lie as Apple does).

ThinkBento wrote:
PaulO wrote: I am surprised by this. I thought Vista was supposed to be slower, especially booting. I was planning to order an X200 with the XP downgrade. (I also don't want a lot of hassles with tracking down drivers, having incompatible software, etc.). In your opinion, is the XP downgrade a mistake?
I ordered the downgrade and the unit shipped with recovery discs fro Vista Business. The package insert said this was intentional.

So I think you are ok to order the downgrade, to try it, and free to upgrade to vista if you prefer.

However, you must either order the dock, or have an external cd drive to create an xp recovery disc, or else you will lose it when you apply the vista upgrade.

X200 disappointment

Who is online