I like the x220 design!

Message

jl123 · #31 Post by **jl123** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:17 pm

THe x220 should have been built on the X400 chassis. Its slimmer and better built. No downside really. Instead Lenovo stuck with the old X series chassis. j

ThinkRob · #32 Post by **ThinkRob** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:34 pm

jl123 wrote:THe x220 should have been built on the X400 chassis. Its slimmer and better built. No downside really. Instead Lenovo stuck with the old X series chassis. j

Uh... There isn't an X400. Also, while the X200 and X201 share the same chassis, the X220 is a new mechanical; it remains to be seen how well-built (or not) it is.

jl123 · #33 Post by **jl123** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:55 pm

You got me to a T! The X220 looks pretty much exactly like the X200 series. And nothing like the T series: call me crazy in my wild speculation, j

penartur · #34 Post by **penartur** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:00 pm

jl123 wrote:You got me to a T! The X220 looks pretty much exactly like the X200 series. And nothing like the T series: call me crazy in my wild speculation, j

Well, maybe that's because it is 12", not 14"?
What are major differences between looks of X200/X220 and T-series behind the size?

TreyRust · #35 Post by **TreyRust** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:11 pm

LenovoGringo wrote:Not trying to reignite the war, but here are the rumored specs for the 2011 MBA: http://churchit.com/new-13-macbook-air-specs/

Yes, the MBA is thinner (heck even the MBPros are thinner) than the X2xx series, but they do sacrifice some things:

1. Hardware Limitations: No Interchangeable Battery / Soldered Ram / SSD only , etc.
2. No Rollcage
3. Chiclet Keyboard w/o liquid drainage
4. Thin but fragile sceens (Thinkpad screens are pressure tested on the center/back of the screen to see if they distort). Try picking up a MBA/MBP by it's screen....
5. Aluminum instead of plastic allows for thinner construction (at the sacrifice of cost). Thinkpads will probably be not made from Al anytime soon.
6. Thinkpads are mil-speced.

All of those things contribute to the thickness of the Thinkpad system. But wait, what about the X300/301? Now that's a fair comparison. Less than 1" thin AND included an optical drive bay whilst conforming to Thinkpad standards. Ahh... If only they took the X300 formfactor, chopped it a little bit to fit around a 12.1" screen, and got rid of the optical bay... Battery life would be pretty abysmal though. I'm sure they could make it work maybe increase the thickness of the battery so it becomes the palmrest (like the Fujistu T2020) at the expense of the stupid trackpad (but they don't!!!!!!).

EDIT: Forgot to talk about price. Apple is awesome. It is SO awesome that it has a huge cult following which allows them the capability to solely rely on their own chain stores to sell their products, effectively cutting out the middleman. Apple has its own software (no paying MS) and is pretty inhouse when it comes to design. Plus, they sell a HUGE volume of computers compared to Thinkpads. No one computer manufacturer can compete on a level that Apple can in terms of price and even in hardware (iPad uses a 4:3 screen, which supposedly no one else can get). They have the resources, an extraordinary demand, and an extraordinary low overhead. This usually equals more bang for the buck.

you got me there, I was thinking that since the thinkpad has more stuff, its bigger, and the macbooks have less, so they are smaller, but my math was probably off a little.

I still think if they really wanted to they could squeeze in a graphics chip, but its still better than the macbook, especially considering it has sandy bridge, that I wasn't thinking about when I first posted.

jcvjcvjcvjcv · #36 Post by **jcvjcvjcvjcv** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:43 pm

I don't like it.

No latches or the touchpad: I don't really care. Latches would have been nice, but I can do without. The touchpad: well, fine that they made it flat; higher quality palmrest to use the trackpoint.

I have a T61 with 1440x900 screen (it's so ugly) and still regret I didn't wait two months for the 4:3 1400x1050 T61.
I have the Windows XP Taskbar on the left side of the screen to free up some very useful vertical pixels.

The X61 could be had with a 1400x1050 screen, the X201 with 1440x900 and now you get 1366x768?

I've argued before that in the footprint of many of these widescreen Thinkpads with protruding batteries you can easily fit a bigger 4:3 screen if you integrate the battery into the body and move the hinges back to where they belong. All without adding a sliver to the total dimensions. For example: the 14" wide T61 with 6 cell battery takes as much space on your table as a 4:3 15" T60

768 is really a ridiculous resolution to work with. My phone has 480x800; 35% as wide, but having a higher vertical resolution.

How is one supposed to use something like AutoCAD on 1366x768? On 1400x1050 you can, on x768: good luck

T60 15" 4:3: 13" x 10.6"
T61 14" 16:10 with 6/7 cell battery: 13.2" x 10.2"

ThinkRob · #37 Post by **ThinkRob** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:37 pm

jcvjcvjcvjcv wrote: The X61 could be had with a 1400x1050 screen, the X201 with 1440x900 and now you get 1366x768?

The X61 only came with an XGA (1024x768) screen. The X201 only offered a WXGA screen -- the X201s offered a WXGA+ screen, but due to supply problems only did so for a very, very short time.

How is one supposed to use something like AutoCAD on 1366x768? On 1400x1050 you can, on x768: good luck

Subnotebooks aren't designed with CAD, video editing, or gaming in mind. IMHO, being upset at this is like being irritated that a Miata has poor towing ability.

sarbin · #38 Post by **sarbin** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:35 pm

ThinkRob wrote:...IMHO, being upset at this is like being irritated that a Miata has poor towing ability.

now that's fun right there.

jdrou · #39 Post by **jdrou** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:12 am

ThinkRob wrote: Subnotebooks aren't designed with CAD, video editing, or gaming in mind.

But they can be; see the Dell/Alienware M11x with discrete GPU.

craigmontHunter · #40 Post by **craigmontHunter** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:30 am

yes, they have a descreet cpu, but the last time I checked, they had LV processors, which could hinder some things (I have no idea about rendering or CAD really, I just know that it has weaker CPUS

)

#41 Post by **GomJabbar** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:48 am

jcvjcvjcvjcv wrote:How is one supposed to use something like AutoCAD on 1366x768? On 1400x1050 you can, on x768: good luck

ThinkRob wrote:Subnotebooks aren't designed with CAD, video editing, or gaming in mind. IMHO, being upset at this is like being irritated that a Miata has poor towing ability.

I don't do any of the above - yet I agree with jcvjcvjcvjcv that x768 is not very good. Too much scrolling on webpages and standard documents for my liking. I've gotten used to the 1400x1050 resolution of my T42.

I've recently ordered a X220 from Cost Central, but I am not thrilled about the lower vertical resolution.

I would have ordered a T420 or T420s, but they are just a bit too wide for traveling IMO.

ThinkRob · #42 Post by **ThinkRob** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:33 am

Well I agree that 1368x768 isn't ideal. I guess it just doesn't bother me as much since most of what I do is text-based.

Plus, I grew up using luxurious CGA/VGA displays, so XGA really doesn't seem that bad...

sarbin · #43 Post by **sarbin** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:45 am

ThinkRob wrote:Plus, I grew up using luxurious CGA/VGA displays, so XGA really doesn't seem that bad...

i grew up with the same, and even some earlier tech, like monochrome dumb terminals, punched tape and teletype terminals. once i got to 1600x1200 uxga ips, it was all over, though. i've got an xga x61t and it's saving grace is that it's only a 12" lcd, so the pixel density stays up a bit. i've got an ips qxga t43p that i really like. can't see distinct pixels on that one.

pianowizard · #44 Post by **pianowizard** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:57 am

ThinkRob wrote:Well I agree that 1368x768 isn't ideal. I guess it just doesn't bother me as much since most of what I do is text-based.

For me, 1366x768 is too low *because* I do text-based stuff. I want to see more lines of text than a 1366x768 (or 1024x768 or 1280x800 or even 1600x900) screen can display. I bought my HP Mini 5101 with 1366x768 only because I need something really light, small and CHEAP for mobile use.

ThinkRob wrote:Plus, I grew up using luxurious CGA/VGA displays, so XGA really doesn't seem that bad...

Actually, back in the DOS3 and WordStar5 days, characters were constructed with far fewer pixel rows than they are today in Windows applications. So, a decent number of lines could be displayed on a CGA screen.

ThinkRob · #45 Post by **ThinkRob** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:29 pm

pianowizard wrote: Actually, back in the DOS3 and WordStar5 days, characters were constructed with far fewer pixel rows than they are today in Windows applications. So, a decent number of lines could be displayed on a CGA screen.

I only used a PC with a CGA display briefly at the very start of my computing life, so I honestly can't remember how many lines one could fit on a screen. The first ThinkPad I used was VGA, as was my first desktop, and I do remember being quite content with the amount of text one could view -- and yes, the rather blocky bitmapped fonts helped in this regard.

Ah, fond memories of WordPerfect have just now come flooding back...

AvalonXIII · #46 Post by **AvalonXIII** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:22 pm

I really don't get all these complain about the switch to a 1366x768 panel. I've used 1400x1050, 1280x800, and 1366x768 in a 12 inch panel, and all are acceptable to me. Am I the only one who is not bothered by all this resolution change?

What I am bothered with mostly, however, is image quality, color reproduction, and viewing angle, as you have to stare at the screen for an extended period of time, so I'm glad that Lenovo moves to an IPS 16:9 panel instead of sticking with a TN 16:10 panel.
Just my 2 cents.

ssd_thinkpad · #47 Post by **ssd_thinkpad** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:57 pm

I have seen some more images from the latest x220 reviews. The x220 series looks much cleaner than the x200 series - but I have to quote a forum.thinkpads.com reviewer from his x301 review: "holy bezel-tastic!"

Lenovo should have cut the palm rest where the trackpad keys are and should have made a design with minimal bezels like they did within the pre-widescreen area. The 16:9 ratio could have helped to make an oustanding x220 with an ips display with minimal bezels.

The current x220 design looks better than the x200 series, though.

pianowizard · #48 Post by **pianowizard** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:08 pm

AvalonXIII wrote:I really don't get all these complain about the switch to a 1366x768 panel. I've used 1400x1050, 1280x800, and 1366x768 in a 12 inch panel, and all are acceptable to me. Am I the only one who is not bothered by all this resolution change?

Wow, I am so jealous of you. I wish I were not picky about resolution, but I am and the only resolution you listed that I can actually enjoy using is 1400x1050. In the 16:9 era, it has become impossible to find a laptop that has sufficient vertical resolution, is under 4 lbs, has a reasonably small footprint, and is within my budget. If I remove the budget requirement, there is only one laptop that meets the first three requirements, i.e. the Sony Z Series. If 16:9 laptops had smaller display bezels, more would meet the footprint requirement.

amardeep · #49 Post by **amardeep** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:24 pm

How does closing the lid work now ? Are there no latches at all ? Is it just held shut by friction at the hinges making it stiff enough so the lid doesn't open freely on it's own ?

AvalonXIII · #50 Post by **AvalonXIII** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:18 pm

To be honest, there's nothing I would love more than to try out the 1080p screen in the Vaio Z first hand, but most model with that screen is upward of $2000, and I'm just not ready to invest that kind of money in a laptop, especially from a manufacturer so horrible on warranty support such as Sony. Heck, they don't even have a warranty lookup page, and only allow original purchaser to be eligible for warranty repair.

pianowizard wrote:
Wow, I am so jealous of you. I wish I were not picky about resolution, but I am and the only resolution you listed that I can actually enjoy using is 1400x1050. In the 16:9 era, it has become impossible to find a laptop that has sufficient vertical resolution, is under 4 lbs, has a reasonably small footprint, and is within my budget. If I remove the budget requirement, there is only one laptop that meets the first three requirements, i.e. the Sony Z Series. If 16:9 laptops had smaller display bezels, more would meet the footprint requirement.

mikemex · #51 Post by **mikemex** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:04 am

1.- It was a bad idea to get rid of the latches; they are there for a reason.
2.- The laptop is still unnecesarily big. They made the bezel that tall just to make room for a touchpad but it's stupid since they keep going wider and wider in screen format with less vertical space every day. They should get rid of the touchpad entirely. Heck, isn't the trackpoint what makes a Thinkpad? Back when they introduced the track sticks, one of the selling points was that it requiered minimal space and that it was adecuate for small machines...
3.- Battery should be in the front, like on the X3x. Given the extra width, it would not be surprising if they came up with a 8 cell, flush battery.
4.- DisplayPort is an awesome adition. I'm very grateful that the choose it over HDMI.
5.- It seems that the X220 is cooler, it doesn't have the bump near the battery to accomodate the larger heatsink. Thumbs Up.
6.- Keyboard is awesome.
7.- Why is Lenovo making bezels so thick??????? I'd rather take a thicker, smaller notebook over a thin and large one.

ssd_thinkpad · #52 Post by **ssd_thinkpad** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:32 am

I'd prefer a thicker, but lighter and more indestructible notebook, too! The Panasonic Let's note series is thicker, but much lighter with better battery life with a 2.000$ plus price tag.

I do not like lenovo using inferior batteries, too. Panasonic cells are the way to go, the Sanyo, Sony ones tend to loosen too much storage too soon.

The main advantage of the x220is IPS. I wonder if the IPS panel weights more than the non-IPS panel.

ThinkRob · #53 Post by **ThinkRob** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:28 am

mikemex wrote:1.- It was a bad idea to get rid of the latches; they are there for a reason.

They're there to keep the lid closed. If the new design can do the same thing without them, it's not a bad idea.

7.- Why is Lenovo making bezels so thick??????? I'd rather take a thicker, smaller notebook over a thin and large one.

Because people want spacious keyboards and 16:9 screens are what they can source. Add those two together and you need a thicker bezel.

ssd_thinkpad · #54 Post by **ssd_thinkpad** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:33 am

With 16:9 and the big keyboard (without touchpad) you can mostly eliminate the palm rest completely. Then you have a nice machine. Lenovo could remove expresscard, sata hdd, wwan (use the pcmcia intel ssd), speakers etc. to make that happen. But then the x220 would not have all these things included ... Of course, there would still be some bezel, so they can put a big camera inside it.

penartur · #55 Post by **penartur** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:22 am

ThinkRob wrote:Because people want spacious keyboards and 16:9 screens are what they can source. Add those two together and you need a thicker bezel.

1) X220 keyboard is of the same size as X200 keyboard, they just added bezels around the keyboard this time. They could produce X220 with thin left and right screen bezels and nearly absent keyboard bezels as on X200.
2) Screen bezels of X220 are so large that one could put a 13" 16:9 screen on such a lid.
So what you said is definitely not a reason, there should be some other reason (like ultraconnect antennas and webcam).

ssd_thinkpad · #56 Post by **ssd_thinkpad** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:28 am

penartur wrote:there should be some other reason (like ultraconnect antennas and webcam).

I believe it's just that the bigger the notebook is, the easier it is to put everything inside. The bigger, the better the cooling. The antennas were just put behind the display panel in the 40 series, I doubt antennas are the reasons for the big bezel.

If lenovo would use more plastics and make a thicker thinkpad, it would be as indestructible but not so good looking - and it would be lighter. You can see from the highly expensive panasonic let's note series (starting from 2.000 with prices over 3.000 $$$) that you can have very lightweight notebooks - like their 15,6 inch notebook with dvdrw and less than 1,9 kg. But, they are not slim in general, only their bezels are phantastic slim.

When I carry a notebook, I notice it's weight much more than its physical size.

penartur · #57 Post by **penartur** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:39 am

ssd_thinkpad wrote:I believe it's just that the bigger the notebook is, the easier it is to put everything inside. The bigger, the better the cooling. The antennas were just put behind the display panel in the 40 series, I doubt antennas are the reasons for the big bezel.

OK, but why it is X220 and not X320 then?
PS: I didn't find X200 bezels to be thick previously, but then i saw photos of some old thinkpad (maybe it was X61) and it is just fantastic, every portion of its area is used.

ssd_thinkpad · #58 Post by **ssd_thinkpad** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:12 pm

The x220 looks much better than the x200. The x60 looks much better than the x220, I agree there with you

The x220 is meant to be cheap and reliable and professional. The 12 inch display costs less and uses less energy than a 13 inch panel. And it's what people agree to buy. I am writing this on a T60 with 15 inch 4:3 IPS and while this display is small for me, it's hard to imagine using a 12,5 inch 16:9 ips panel. If the T60 would be lighter and would have a better battery life ...

ssd_thinkpad · #59 Post by **ssd_thinkpad** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:12 pm

After talking to a lenovo representative the x220 can be ordered from april 19th although it is not set in stone.

th1 · #60 Post by **th1** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:54 pm

ssd_thinkpad wrote:The x220 is meant to be cheap

if you talk this way, it means that you have to earn a lot of money then.

I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Re: I like the x220 design!

Who is online