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

x301 disappointing

X200, X201, X220 (including equivalent tablet models) and X300, X301 series specific matters only.
Message
Author
sanjuro
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:08 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

x301 disappointing

#1 Post by sanjuro » Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:05 am

I've been carefully looking at the specs for X301 and I find it disappointing. X30x is a nice design but it seems that a more sweeter spot for thin and light notebooks seems to be sub-4lb with 14" display.

Instead of using SU9400(1.4GHz) processor in X301, one can get more performance with SL9400 (1.87GHz) processor which is used in X200s.

Basically take the 14" LED display from T400, processor from X200s, and incorporate into a slightly larger X30x frame. This would make it a very attractive computer. Wonder what is stopping Lenovo?

naus
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:45 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

#2 Post by naus » Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:30 am

I've given up on Lenovo. Their engineering dept (I think based in Japan) is tone-deaf. They still use the crappiest screens available and then blame it on the TN film manufacturers, even though Sony, Apple and HP all use TN films too and their screens look much better than Lenovo's.

The whole X300 lineup doesn't even make sense. Why use ULV (and not even LV) processor when the X200 uses a full voltage processor? Who the heck wants to pay $2500 on a computer with a 1.2-1.4ghz processor? All for saving 3mm on the thickness?

martin255
Freshman Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:22 am
Location: Rouen, France

#3 Post by martin255 » Mon Oct 20, 2008 4:20 am

Well, not everyone needs huge processing power. My work mostly involves office documents and a bit of HTML, so almost any modern dual core processor feels the same to me. I currently use a ULV Pentium M, and if other parts of the laptop weren't dying, I would be sticking with it.

Some of us prefer less weight and more battery life to more processing power. That being said, the X301 has pretty crappy battery life for its features so I guess I'll be going with the X200s.

dr_st
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8118
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 6:20 am
Location: Israel

#4 Post by dr_st » Mon Oct 20, 2008 4:49 am

The ULV CPUs in the X30x are surprisingly spiffy.

What bothers me more about these models are the absence of normal docking port and the absence of cheaper configurations using normal hard drives.

The screen is probably as horrible as the TN screen on my 14" T60, but oh well.

Puppy
Senior ThinkPadder
Senior ThinkPadder
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:52 am
Location: Prague, Czech Republic

#5 Post by Puppy » Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:13 am

dr_st wrote:The screen is probably as horrible as the TN screen on my 14" T60, but oh well.
No, it is even worse ! There were pictures comparing it with ten years old ThinkPad 600X and the X30x display was clearly worse. I really don't know what to do because Lenovo absolutely don't listen :cry: :twisted:

Try to post your opinion on horrible displays as a comment to appropriate Lenovo blog, for example here http://lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/?p=155#comments
ThinkPad (1992 - 2012): R51, X31, X220, Tablet 8
Huawei MateBook 13

csv96
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 579
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 4:45 pm
Location: Michigan, USA

#6 Post by csv96 » Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:28 pm

In defense of the X301, I just wanted to point out that it does NOT have the same screen as the X300. I have both. The X301 screen has much improved color and contrast compared to the X300 screen. As for the CPU, 1.4GHZ is more than enough for anything but gaming and video editing. Battery life with the 3-cell isn't great (I get about 2 hours), but with the 9-cell configuration (6+3 cells) I easily get 5+ hours of normal use. I'm very happy with my X301 (except for the price).
Thinkpad X200s w/ Ultrabase
C2D SL9600 / 8GB / 160GB X25-M G2 / BD MULTI / 12.1" WXGA / INTEL 4500MHD / INTEL 5150 / BT / AT&T WWAN / W7

Puppy
Senior ThinkPadder
Senior ThinkPadder
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:52 am
Location: Prague, Czech Republic

#7 Post by Puppy » Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:48 pm

csv96 wrote:I have both. The X301 screen has much improved color and contrast compared to the X300 screen.
Can you identify model and manufacturer of both panels ? Thanks.
ThinkPad (1992 - 2012): R51, X31, X220, Tablet 8
Huawei MateBook 13

laughingtonto
Freshman Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:22 am

#8 Post by laughingtonto » Mon Oct 20, 2008 6:33 pm

I also have both an x300 and x301 and I've been extremely happy with both. The x301 in particular now has displayport digital monitor connection and handily drives a huge 30" Dell monitor at it's native 2560x1600.

-Todd

csv96
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 579
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 4:45 pm
Location: Michigan, USA

#9 Post by csv96 » Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:19 pm

Puppy wrote:
csv96 wrote:I have both. The X301 screen has much improved color and contrast compared to the X300 screen.
Can you identify model and manufacturer of both panels ? Thanks.

Not sure, they both have the same part number for the display:

42T0475 42T0476 13.3 INCH LCD DISPLAY FRU YES
Thinkpad X200s w/ Ultrabase
C2D SL9600 / 8GB / 160GB X25-M G2 / BD MULTI / 12.1" WXGA / INTEL 4500MHD / INTEL 5150 / BT / AT&T WWAN / W7

ZaZ
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4548
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 1:33 pm
Location: Minnesota

#10 Post by ZaZ » Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:10 pm

I think PC Wizard will tell you the manufacturer.
ProBook 470 G5

stylinexpat
Sophomore Member
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:50 am
Location: Taipei,Taiwan

#11 Post by stylinexpat » Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:12 am

naus wrote:I've given up on Lenovo. Their engineering dept (I think based in Japan) is tone-deaf. They still use the crappiest screens available and then blame it on the TN film manufacturers, even though Sony, Apple and HP all use TN films too and their screens look much better than Lenovo's.

The whole X300 lineup doesn't even make sense. Why use ULV (and not even LV) processor when the X200 uses a full voltage processor? Who the heck wants to pay $2500 on a computer with a 1.2-1.4ghz processor? All for saving 3mm on the thickness?
LOL, I agree :)

Puppy
Senior ThinkPadder
Senior ThinkPadder
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:52 am
Location: Prague, Czech Republic

#12 Post by Puppy » Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:20 am

csv96 wrote:Not sure, they both have the same part number for the display:
I know, that's why I was sceptical regarding X301 display quality. It means there are more suppliers with significant quality differences then.
ThinkPad (1992 - 2012): R51, X31, X220, Tablet 8
Huawei MateBook 13

bdoviack
Freshman Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:03 am

#13 Post by bdoviack » Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:46 pm

The X301 is a great laptop. I went from a T61p to an X301 and the X301 has the same performance (at least what is noticeable). The screen is also much brighter and crisper.

I think processor speeds today are becoming irrelevant as almost any processor released today will perform 90% of the tasks required quite well.

The processor argument is like saying why would anyone buy a 300HP car when a 500HP is available when all most people do is drive on the freeway at normal speeds (under 100mph).

hsjC
Freshman Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:28 am
Location: San Francisco, CA, US

#14 Post by hsjC » Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:59 pm

I agree. A faster processor would be nice. But heck, I can't tell the difference when I'm just browsing the web or typing up a document between my three machines:

athlon 64 2.0GHz(single core) + 1G ram;
core duo 1.86GHz + 2G ram;(lenovo z61t)
xeon e5410 2.33GHz (quad core) + 16G ram;

But it is absolutely critical for me to host virtual machines or play games or run simulations to have the best performance possible.

It's what you need that matters. So I'm pro x301. The CPU is not an issue for me.
Recursion:
See: Recursion.

sparta.rising
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:27 pm
Location: Boston, MA

#15 Post by sparta.rising » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:18 pm

Its funny, the Latitude E4300 owners are all saying the X300 has a much nicer screen. If only the X300 had a nice thin bezel like the E4300... I know this question is over-asked, but why is Lenovo sacrificing footprint for... thick bezel love? The wireless antenna argument is BS.
Z61t - C2D 2GHz CPU - 3GB RAM - 320GB HDD - 14.1" WXGA+ - Intel 950 - Travel Bezel

csv96
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 579
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 4:45 pm
Location: Michigan, USA

#16 Post by csv96 » Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:31 am

Puppy wrote:
csv96 wrote:Not sure, they both have the same part number for the display:
I know, that's why I was sceptical regarding X301 display quality. It means there are more suppliers with significant quality differences then.
You may be right. But it's possible that Lenovo has dumped the previous manufacturer. I would be curious to find out if anyone with an X301 has gotten the "bad" X300 screen.
Thinkpad X200s w/ Ultrabase
C2D SL9600 / 8GB / 160GB X25-M G2 / BD MULTI / 12.1" WXGA / INTEL 4500MHD / INTEL 5150 / BT / AT&T WWAN / W7

niancai
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:22 am
Location: Beijing,China

Re: x301 disappointing

#17 Post by niancai » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:10 am

sanjuro wrote:I've been carefully looking at the specs for X301 and I find it disappointing. X30x is a nice design but it seems that a more sweeter spot for thin and light notebooks seems to be sub-4lb with 14" display.

Instead of using SU9400(1.4GHz) processor in X301, one can get more performance with SL9400 (1.87GHz) processor which is used in X200s.

Basically take the 14" LED display from T400, processor from X200s, and incorporate into a slightly larger X30x frame. This would make it a very attractive computer. Wonder what is stopping Lenovo?
the Key point my concerned with x301 is : why Lenovo used SU9400 not whith SL9400 , the performance is very important , you know used CPU 1.0~1.4GHZ could do some works well but not excellent, So expensive , Pay $2500 for it . That's not good solutions , I have used x41 PM1.6 GHZ more than 3 years , It's quite slowly .

csv96
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 579
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 4:45 pm
Location: Michigan, USA

#18 Post by csv96 » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:03 am

The reason for the SU9300 instead of an SL9300 or SL9400 is battery life. With the SU9300, they can still advertise 4 hours with the 3-cell (<2 hours real life use). If they used the SL series, that would be more like ~1 hour real life use. There is no one piece 9-cell battery option for the X301. You have to use the 6-cell extended battery and pull out the optical drive to install the 3-cell bay battery which sort of defeats the point of getting the X301 over the X200S.

I recently got my wife an X200S with the SL9400 and my X301 is still faster overall because of the SSD. Both are excellent laptops but for different target audiences.
Thinkpad X200s w/ Ultrabase
C2D SL9600 / 8GB / 160GB X25-M G2 / BD MULTI / 12.1" WXGA / INTEL 4500MHD / INTEL 5150 / BT / AT&T WWAN / W7

comptiger5000
Sophomore Member
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Stamford, CT

#19 Post by comptiger5000 » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:09 am

In reference to the Thinkpad display quality, I have heard both good and bad. My Dad's XGA 14.1" T60 has a mediocre display, the 15.4" WUXGA on my W500 is far better. It's actually basically the best TN laptop display I've seen. Not as good as an IPS panel, but at a straight-on viewing angle, it's somewhat close.

gaia
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:23 am
Location: Woodbridge VA

#20 Post by gaia » Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:39 pm

I went from a T60 to an X300 and the X300 is significantly faster & has a much better screen.

I'm upgrading to an X301 with Vista 64 today, so I'll see how it compares to the X300.

Greg Gebhardt
thinkpads.com customer
thinkpads.com customer
Posts: 847
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 6:29 pm
Location: Jacksonville, Florida

Re: x301 disappointing

#21 Post by Greg Gebhardt » Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:28 am

niancai wrote:
sanjuro wrote:Note from Admin: Excessive, nested quoting snipped.
My X301 with 128gb SSD might have a slower processor but in my perception, while using it, is that it is as fast as my T61p. I use MS Office and do a good bit of CS4 and it copes quite well. I am not having to wait for anything while using my X301 and am quite surprised at how much I like the keyboard, screen and mostly the size and weight!

I am happy
Last edited by Greg Gebhardt on Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Greg Gebhardt
Jacksonville, Florida

bluewale
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:31 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: x301 disappointing

#22 Post by bluewale » Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Greg Gebhardt wrote:
niancai wrote:
I am also a happy owner of thinkpad x301. The build quality is much better than T400. The machine remains cool after several hour use. I use windows xp 32-bit with 4GB memory, and I used the extra 1GB memory as ramdisk that holds the virtual memory and temp folder. The display is not as good as my thinkpad X60T, but I can live with it.
Thinkpad X40; Thinkpad T43; Thinkpad X60T; Thinkpad X301

amardeep
Freshman Member
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 2:15 pm
Location: Winchester, United Kingdom

#23 Post by amardeep » Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:55 am

and I used the extra 1GB memory as ramdisk that holds the virtual memory and temp folder
How do you do that ? Is it something easy to set up in Windows somewhere ?

bluewale
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:31 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

#24 Post by bluewale » Mon Dec 01, 2008 10:09 pm

It is not difficult at all. I learned it from a website in Taiwan http://www.cnblogs.com/oomusou/archive/ ... 1187.html).

My translation.
"you need to download a modified Gavotte Ramdisk at http://files.cnblogs.com/oomusou/Ramdisk_4G.7z. You can decompress the file using WinRAR. The original program is free.

then follow these steps.
1. Decompress the content of Ramdisk_4G.7z to C:\Program Files\Ramdisk\

2. run ram4g.reg to update the registry.

3. run ramdisk.exe, click Install Ramdisk, then set the disk size to 1G, drive letter to R:, and media type to Fixed Media, click OK.

4. reboot the machine. "

On my 4GB X301, I now have 3GB memory and an extra hard drive R:. I set windows virtual memory (start at 300MB, Max: 512MB) to the R: drive. I also move temporary internet files to R: . You can also change system environment variable TEMP and TMP to R:\Temp

Advantages:
1. use the extra 1GB memory.
2. increase performance
3. increase the lifespan of SSD.

It works with windows xp 32-bit and vista 32-bit.

Known limitations:
1. windows can not hibernate. but with X301's fast boot time, it is not a problem for me. Most of the time, I just use standby because SSD won't be damaged while I move the machine.
2. If you need to download big files (bigger than the space available on R:), you need to move the temporary internet files folder to SSD.
3. only works with machines with hardware support for 64-bit physical address.
Thinkpad X40; Thinkpad T43; Thinkpad X60T; Thinkpad X301

amardeep
Freshman Member
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 2:15 pm
Location: Winchester, United Kingdom

#25 Post by amardeep » Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:48 am

Thanks for the info.

gaia
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:23 am
Location: Woodbridge VA

#26 Post by gaia » Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:56 pm

gaia wrote:I went from a T60 to an X300 and the X300 is significantly faster & has a much better screen.

I'm upgrading to an X301 with Vista 64 today, so I'll see how it compares to the X300.
I've had an X301 for 5 days now. 128GB SSD, 4GB RAM, Vista 64. Only had to upgrade one program (Tclock). Speed about the same as my previous X300, 64GB SSD, 2GB, Vista 32.

Very satisfied.

dmunjal
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:48 pm
Location: Dublin, CA

#27 Post by dmunjal » Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:44 am

How'd you get Vista 64 and is it faster than Vista 32?

gaia
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:23 am
Location: Woodbridge VA

#28 Post by gaia » Thu Dec 04, 2008 1:23 am

dmunjal wrote:How'd you get Vista 64 and is it faster than Vista 32?
Simply checked the box for Vista 64 when ordering, no extra charge. The X301 with Vista 64 appears to be on a par with the X300 Vista 32, or possibly a bit faster. Both are excellent for me.

nxman
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:01 pm
Location: Kuwait City, Kuwait

#29 Post by nxman » Thu Dec 25, 2008 1:02 pm

In my life I've owned like 20 Thinkpads so far none of them had a good screen.
Last edited by nxman on Thu Dec 25, 2008 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

stylinexpat
Sophomore Member
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:50 am
Location: Taipei,Taiwan

#30 Post by stylinexpat » Thu Dec 25, 2008 1:07 pm

nxman wrote:In my life I've owned around than 20 Thinkpads so far none of them had a good screen.
Have you bought the new X200 Tablet :?:

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “ThinkPad X200/201/220 and X300/301 Series”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests