Thinkpads Forum

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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

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

I think PC Wizard will tell you the manufacturer.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 ?

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.

Thanks for the info.

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.

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

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.

In my life I've owned like 20 Thinkpads so far none of them had a good screen.

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