Thinkpads Forum

1) if you had the choice to buy a used x300 for $1000 or a brand new, factory-sealed x301 for $1400, which would you get?

I ask because I am in this position. Both prices are excellent. I don't expect to use my laptop for many complicated things. Every once in a while, i do some video editing and photoshop work, but 95% of the time, it's mainly simple office productivity work. it's a tough call, because the $1400 price i got for the x301 is absolutely stellar... it's just still a lot of money. please take into consider resale value down the road and things like that.

they are both similarly equipped: dvd-rw, 64GB SSD, 3 year warranty (both expire 8/2011), 2GB Ram (in one slot).

2) for those of you that have had both (lucky you!): are the differences pretty significant?

I've had a X300 Vista 32 bit 2GB RAM 64GB SSD & now a X301 Vista 64 bit 4GB RAM 128GB SSD. And I use a 500GB external USB drive for my little used files. Both machines are excellent.

Between the two I've discerned no difference. If the extra $400 isn't an issue then get the X301, otherwise get the X300. You'll be very happy with either.

As for resale, I treat notebook computers as an expense so whatever you might get after a few years I'd consider a bonus.

I would definitely go for the X301, because it is has better display, better graphics and Montevina chipset.

I'm not sure what the opposite of "Hobson's choice" is, but it sounds like you have it.

Still, I'd definitely second the previous vote and pick the X301.

I would guess that the performance between x300 and x301 is not so much off...

To the screen: I saw yesterday on a demo an x300 and an x301 on the same table. without having them side by side I coudl not tell a difference in screen quality.

One argument to consider:
The x30? have no docking station, and video over USB is far from perfect...

So if you plan to use high resolution external screens / projectors etc, The x301 has the edge: it has VGA and display port, the x300 has only VGA

Thanks for the thoughts! Is there an official differnece between the two screens? (ie, are they different part numbers or so they have different types of panels?)

itzcoolz wrote:Thanks for the thoughts! Is there an official differnece between the two screens? (ie, are they different part numbers or so they have different types of panels?)

I don´t know about any "official differences", also, both screens use the same type of panel TN with LED backlit). But I hear many people (including some friends of mine having bought X300 or X301) saying that the screen of X301 is slightly better than the one of X300 regarding viewing angles and color accuracy... I believe there are also some threads in this subforum about that.

if you are willing to pay extra $400 for "slightly" better screen and .2ghz or CPU then go for it. personally I would just go for 200t if you are willing to stick with a smaller screen. me i can't get used to the 12" screen and 13"1' is much bigger so i chose x300.
think what else can you get for $400? i bet for 400 you can get a nice external screen and connect your x300 to it and get much better effect than getting x301.

mattbiernat wrote:if you are willing to pay extra $400 for "slightly" better screen and .2ghz or CPU then go for it. personally I would just go for 200t if you are willing to stick with a smaller screen. me i can't get used to the 12" screen and 13"1' is much bigger so i chose x300.
think what else can you get for $400? i bet for 400 you can get a nice external screen and connect your x300 to it and get much better effect than getting x301.

Good point! But let not forget about the improved integrated graphics and the much faster memory (real 1066 MHz)

Cheers

Marin

EDIT: And in addition to what mattbiernat pointed out, it seems to me that X200(t) has much better battery life than X30x, some folks report over 8h with the 8 cell (that sticks out a bit...). And anyway X200t has much better screen than X30x, but it´s smaller and has no internal CD/DVD drive.

Marin85 wrote: EDIT: And in addition to what mattbiernat pointed out, it seems to me that X200(t) has much better battery life than X30x, some folks report over 8h with the 8 cell (that sticks out a bit...). And anyway X200t has much better screen than X30x, but it´s smaller and has no internal CD/DVD drive.

Where did you see the 8h battery life reported on the X200t with 8 cell battery? Could you please provide a link? TIA

Also, I think X301 has DisplayPort and X300 does not and you may find that you want that feature.

dfumento wrote:Where did you see the 8h battery life reported on the X200t with 8 cell battery? Could you please provide a link? TIA

Yup, for example here (I hope I have understood this thread correctly). I believe if you browse back the forum, you might be able to find more like this (I´m pretty sure there were a few more users reporting 8h of battery life with X200).

Hope this helps

Marin

I've read on various reviews that the x301 took about 45 seconds longer to boot up than the x300, which makes no sense to me. Is this a consistent fact, or was it just due to a launch bug or bad driver or something else that got resolved?

Thanks so much for all your help! The decision is still so tough! I've actually bought both already (the prices were too good to wait on), and I'm deciding which to sell. This also adds complexity to the choice, since I think I can make more profit by selling the factory-sealed x301

itzcoolz wrote:I've read on various reviews that the x301 took about 45 seconds longer to boot up than the x300, which makes no sense to me. Is this a consistent fact, or was it just due to a launch bug or bad driver or something else that got resolved

I haven´t heard about such a thing, but here a few things to consider:
1. X300 is shipped with SLC SSD, which doesn´t require "tweaks" to correct the drive performance
2. AFAIK X301 is shipped with MLC SSD. MLC SSDs are known to happen to exhibit some issues and in most cases require some "tweaks" in particular under XP OS. If that X301 you are referring to was shipped with XP, I doubt that Lenovo has applied any of those tweaks to correct the SSD performance before deploying the preload image onto it.
3. X301 has newer hardware and hence uses other drivers. Some drivers can slow down the system boot.
4. Lenovo preload includes many applications which significantly (IMO) slow down the system boot. Or the image may have included bad versions of some of those applications, which have been corrected later by updates.
5. It could have been isolated case.

From what I hear in this forum, many folks are pretty happy with the X301, some of them even more than with their previous X300. X301 is reported to be fast and snappy little monster

Cheers

Marin

itzcoolz wrote:I've read on various reviews that the x301 took about 45 seconds longer to boot up than the x300, which makes no sense to me. Is this a consistent fact, or was it just due to a launch bug or bad driver or something else that got resolved

you mean it took entire 1minute and 35 seconds to boot? don't worry about this, bad drivers will get updated and there are many things you can do to speed up your boot time. my x300 was booting in 50 seconds and i got it cut down to 26.

Another thing to consider is whether those prices include the WWAN card if you need that support. If you want the official Lenovo solution, it's a lot cheaper to add the Lenovo WWAN card to the X301 than the X300, at least in the UK, but check out the prices if it's a factor for you.
James.

[quote="Marin85]I haven´t heard about such a thing, but here a few things to consider:
1. X300 is shipped with SLC SSD, which doesn´t require "tweaks" to correct the drive performance
2. AFAIK X301 is shipped with MLC SSD. MLC SSDs are known to happen to exhibit some issues and in most cases require some "tweaks" in particular under XP OS. If that X301 you are referring to was shipped with XP, I doubt that Lenovo has applied any of those tweaks to correct the SSD performance before deploying the preload image onto it. 3. X301 has newer hardware and hence uses other drivers. Some drivers can slow down the system boot.
4. Lenovo preload includes many applications which significantly (IMO) slow down the system boot. Or the image may have included bad versions of some of those applications, which have been corrected later by updates.
5. It could have been isolated case.

From what I hear in this forum, many folks are pretty happy with the X301, some of them even more than with their previous X300. X301 is reported to be fast and snappy little monster

Cheers

Marin[/quote]

The X301 seems to ship with SLC SSD, not MLC.
I took my drive out, 64GB and looked at it, but did not get the model number. I took the model number from this link: http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.ph ... 36#p482036

Take that number and look at this chart from Samsung and they report it as SLC chips:
http://www.samsung.com/global/business/ ... tions.html

That chart does not have any 128GB in the SLC class - maybe the 128 SSD is the MLC?

Yes, I was referring to the 128 GB one. In the beginning the X301 was configurable only with the 128 GB SSD, which is a MLC SSD. I see Lenovo now offers the 64 GB option as well, and, yes, it´s SLC.

Marin

Marin85 wrote:Yes, I was referring to the 128 GB one. In the beginning the X301 was configurable only with the 128 GB SSD, which is a MLC SSD. I see Lenovo now offers the 64 GB option as well, and, yes, it´s SLC.

Marin

I have 2 X301.
One was built before 2009, and another one was after.
The one before came with a 64gb SLC, but the one after came with a 64gb MLC.

That´s somewhat surprising Was there any difference in price?

I'd go with one X61s and one 15.4" T61. That would fall in your budget range.

(Actually, a while back I did, I have an X40 and a 15" T60, why compromise?!)