Thinkpads Forum

I bought a x200s used... type 7465-CTO. Nice machine (though I like the trackpoint on the HP 2530p better), but I was excited to buy an x200s because the very low weight but good battery life (lenovo specs 2.4/2.7/3.0 lbs with 4/6/9 cell). However mine weighs 2.6 lbs with no battery at all, 3.6 with the 9 cell battery it came with. What could possibly account for an extra half-pound? It is 1280x800 WXGA display with webcam. Processor L9400 1.86GHz, hard drive WD2500BEVS (specs are weight 0.26 lbs). I was at first afraid I actually bought an x200 because of the weight, but it is branded with x200s, and it is a low voltage CPU. Were later models of x200s made heavier?

I weighed using american weigh h-110 (handy and compact).

welcome to the forum!

the 1280x800 X200s model is around 0.4 lbs heavier than the 1440x900 model due to the difference in display panel weight and the lid/hinge construction.   you'd need a 1440x900 model if you want the lightest weight configuration.

you can save a bit of weight on yours by going to an SSD.

erik is correct. The X200s models with a WXGA+ screen used a CFRP lid, whilst the X200 and WXGA-equipped X200s models used a magnesium alloy lid (which was slightly heavier.)

An SSD may be a bit lighter, but obviously that'll depend on the SSD that you use.

Or use a SATA-to-CF adapter. XD

Colonel O'Neill wrote:Or use a SATA-to-CF adapter. XD

Only if you're the gambling sort of person! Plus, CF cards don't perform anywhere near as well as real SSDs...

Saw this thread and just weighted my 1440x900 x200s on the scale of mail room ( which is pretty accurate ). Here's the result :

x200s with 4 cell battery : 2.65 lb.
x200s with 9 cell battery : 3.25 lb.
9 cell battery alone : 1.10 lb.

The laptop is pretty standard. I've swapped out 2x2gb ram with 2x4gb ram ( shouldn't made any difference ). Replaced Intel 5100n with 5300n ( again, shouldn't made any difference ), and replaced 7200rpm 32Gb HST hard drive with a 90Gb ssd ( if anything, should reduce weight a little ).

May be depends on what brand of battery you got also contribute to a slight difference in weight?

Thanks for the replies. The screen is the difference, that makes sense.

@Tony: based on that, your high res x200s weighs 2.15 lb w/o battery, vs 2.6 lb for mine... that is probably the 0.4 lb screen difference right there.

I think even the lightest 2.5" SSDs are 60 g = 0.13 lb so replacing the 0.26 lb HD doesn't do a whole lot by itself.

I seem to recall that I had avoided the high res screen x200s because none of them could fit a built-in webcam. So I am thinking perhaps I should sell this x200s and spend a bit more and buy an x220, which is supposed to be 2.9 lbs with a 6 cell, and battery life should be longer too, and has a better (IPS) screen. I will try to find one in person to take a look at.

I've just weighted my x200s without battery and it turn out to be 2.20 lb. I guess the extra piece of ram weights 0.05 lb

As for x220, almost every area is a noticable improvement, except for screen resolution ( 1366 x 768 vs 1440 x 900 for x200s ). I am holding out as long as I can for 16:10 and higher res screen. Wouldn't it be nice that Lenovo comes out with a x220s/x230s with exact same spec, but with 1600 x 900 screen !!!

16:10 is on its way out for good..we aren't going to see another small laptop with that format I don't think.

mpelc wrote:So I am thinking perhaps I should sell this x200s

Yep, that's what I would do if I were you.

mpelc wrote:and spend a bit more and buy an x220, which is supposed to be 2.9 lbs with a 6 cell, and battery life should be longer too, and has a better (IPS) screen.

But I would rather get an X201s with 1440x900. 1366x768 is truly pathetic -- I tried to get used to it for about half a year but couldn't.

Cunha wrote:16:10 is on its way out for good..we aren't going to see another small laptop with that format I don't think.

I know.. I know. I am just dreaming that may be, just may be a 16:9 high res version will eventually be made. Like x200s to regular 200. I don't mind too much about 16:10 vs 16:9 but you got to give me some vertical space. Like pianowizard, I tried to get used to 1366 x 768 but I just can't. Coming from a 1400x1050 T60, I think my minimun vertical is 900.

Have to say though, all the said advantage of x220 features are very tempting. I might change my mind one day and get a x220 ( or, better yet, a x230 !! ).

Btw, welcome to the forum mpelc!!

Yeah. I'm still using my X61s every day. I got my wife an X200 and I could easily get used to that resolution. Havent encountered an X220 yet though. I like all the X series honestly.