X300 - Pig in a Poke?

[rkawakami]

During a particularly weak moment while perusing eBay this past week, I bought this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/121086771163 (6477-1ZU) Been wanting to play with something more "modern" than the X60/X61/Z61p systems that have arrived recently. Yeah, I know one or two years isn't that much difference . Since the system comes without the original SSD, I was wondering what the Borg collective here thinks of dropping back to a spinning platter. Given that the cost of even a smallish 64GB 1.8" Micro SATA SSD is about the same price, or more, than what I paid for the laptop, I figured (post-purchase) that putting in a hard drive of around 120-160GB would do fine for my storage needs. Seems like a Toshiba MK1235GSL or Samsung HS12VJF drive would work. Anybody here have the experience of swapping out the SSD for an HD on an X300 and can say what kind of drive was used and what the speed difference between the SSD and HD was?

A Windows XP restore disk set is on its way; not a fan of Vista. Maybe later I'll put Windows 7 on this but for now I'm comfortable with XP.

I'm already looking around for a good 6-cell battery.

Besides the HD downgrade, a planned Middleton BIOS upgrade and maxing out memory, is there anything else I should consider? Staying away from eBay has already been suggested and dismissed .

[ajkula66]

No Middleton BIOS needed on X300, it's already SATA 3.0...

You've got the rest covered pretty well from what I'm gathering...

Have fun.

[91011]

Congratulations, that’s quite a deal for an x300.

I have an x301 that came with the Toshiba 5400rpm HDD and swapped it with a Samsung SSD from an x300, then sold the x300 - only bought it for the drive.
The Samsung really transformed the x301 and has been my favorite TP (now with an Intel 320) for three years.
So, if it were me, I would hold out for the SSD.

I think you’ll discover the battery harder to find.
Recently took me four months of checking eBay multiple times per day to get a decent Lenovo 6 cell for a good price - $35.
Several arrived dead or nearly so.

Enjoy the machine.

[xyz]

Stick with the ssd
Had a t410s with a non ssd and it was a pain to use.
The ssd makes these snappy and fast.

[pianowizard]

not a fan of Vista. Maybe later I'll put Windows 7 on this

When was the last time you used Vista? Right now, with all updates installed, Vista feels essentially the same as 7 (though on some of my computers it's actually more stable than 7), and it isn't any slower than XP. Realizing that its reputation was at stake, Microsoft worked hard at fixing all of Vista's initial glitches.

[JeffCullen]

Vista with SP2 is alarmingly decent.

[ajkula66]

Vista with SP2 is alarmingly decent.

Agreed...but the lack of TRIM support makes it a non-starter for me on a vast majority of the hardware that I normally deal with...

[JeffCullen]

Great point, George!

I'd rather use any of my Paleozoic-era Thinkpads with a SSD than a brand new machine with a spinning disk... and I'd recommend the same to anyone who gives even a fraction of a care about the value of their time -- not only in a monetary sense but On This Earth.

[pianowizard]

Vista with SP2 is alarmingly decent.

The best reason to use Vista is when a machine already has a Vista COA sticker, because that allows one to install Vista for free. If it were a terrible OS, then it would make sense to replace it with something else, but like you said, Vista with SP2 is definitely not terrible. In fact, I think it's terrific.

Agreed...but the lack of TRIM support makes it a non-starter for me on a vast majority of the hardware that I normally deal with...

Fine, but Ray said he is downgrading from Vista to XP on his X300, which makes no sense since XP doesn't have TRIM support either, not to mention the fact that Microsoft support for XP is ending in just 11.5 months. And if he is downgrading because he likes XP's interface, then I don't understand why he'd prefer 7 over Vista (he said "not a fan of Vista. Maybe later I'll put Windows 7 on this") considering that XP's interface is more similar to Vista's than to 7's.

Speaking of TRIM, do you really notice any advantage? I have been using Vista on my Latitude's SSD for over a year and still haven't noticed anything slowing down. Same thing for my CF-Y7's SSD -- it's running 8 now but it had XP for several months last year, and it didn't slow down over time.

[rkawakami]

It's been a couple of years since I last used a Vista machine and from what I remember, I didn't like it very much. It was slow to start and shut down, UAC seemed to be too intrusive, and I guess you can say that I've bought into the theory that every other Windows release is a step backward. I have never had a personal Vista machine. I do have an X61 that came with a Japanese version of Vista but I don't use it. I have several X60/X61 systems that came with 7. I use them rarely; my youngest daughter has one. Me, my wife and older daughter use an X60 with XP.

I'm 'downgrading' the OS since the X300 came without a hard drive or SSD. I currently have an 80GB Toshiba MK1229GSG installed ($33 on eBay) and that's why I'm planning to put XP on it. I also now have a 64GB Samsung MMCRE64G8MXP-0VB (thanks Brad!!) that will get a Windows 7 install, since as George correctly points out, it has TRIM support. When XP finally goes to that big bit bucket in the sky, that's when I'll think about moving most of my fleet up to 7 (skipping Vista, not bothering with 8 and holding out that Windows "9" will be a winner). The older machines will probably stay with XP or get some version of *nix that still supports the ancient hardware.

Regarding the Middleton BIOS update: I got an aftermarket battery ($20) and performed the update. I found that the disk transfer rate greatly increased for the Samsung SSD but did not affect the Toshiba HD at all. I have the benchmark figures on my A31p which I left at work today. Since I don't have any OS on either drive, I used PC Doctor's disk benchmark utility. Here are the numbers:

Factory BIOS	Samsung MMCRE64G8MXP 64GB SSD		Toshiba MK1229GSG 80GB HDD
Average Seek	0.0 ms					8.4 - 8.6 ms
Maximum Seek	0.0 ms					29.2 ms
Access Rate	4641.0 kB/s				4641.0 kB/s
Transfer Rate	11094.6 kB/s				4437.8 kB/s

Fixed Disk Diagnostic - All tests
Execution Time	0:08:34					0:48:49

Middleton BIOS
Average Seek	0.0 ms					8.4 - 8.6 ms
Maximum Seek	0.0 ms					29.2 ms
Access Rate	6188.0 kB/s				4641.0 kB/s
Transfer Rate	22189.2 kB/s				4437.8 kB/s

Fixed Disk Diagnostic - All tests
Execution Time	0:05:52					did not run

[pianowizard]

It was slow to start and shut down

Is it really slower than XP? I haven't used XP in so long that I don't remember.

UAC seemed to be too intrusive

It can be turned off easily.

I guess you can say that I've bought into the theory that every other Windows release is a step backward.

Actually, I find myself liking every other release as well, but in the opposite way because I prefer 95, 2000, Vista and 8 over 3.11, 98, XP and 7, with stability being the main reason. 3.11 was just too primitive. 98 often had trouble shutting down but 95 did not. XP gave me blue screens once in a while but 2000 never did. 7 has various issues that are admittedly minor but they happen frequently, whereas Vista and 8 have been virtually free of issues.

I'm 'downgrading' the OS since the X300 came without a hard drive or SSD.

Did you see the photo of this X300? It has a Vista COA sticker, so you are downgrading. BTW, are you sure it's legal to use the XP recovery discs on a machine without an XP COA? You probably need to buy an XP license.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to persuade you to try Vista. I just wanted to understand your rationale.

[rkawakami]

The rationale can basically be summed up as: "I'm old and set in my ways" .

[rkawakami]

Necro-posting as I was asked about the aftermarket 6-cell battery... http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.ph ... 30#p724430

Power Manager reports the following:
Sanyo battery (ack..)
Manufacture date: 2012-03-11
First used date: 2013-04
Serial number: 1
Design capacity: 38.88 Wh
Full charge capacity: 38.32 Wh
Cycle count: 5

Battery is branded "Techorbit". Has a rating of 3600mAh/39Wh printed on it. I said in the other thread about not running the battery down. Well, tonight when I powered up the X300 it was in (disconnected from an AC adapter for about two weeks), it was dead . I usually leave the system on my desk connected to a charger as it serves as my "sync" laptop (Garmin GPS map updater, iTunes for my iPad and iPods) but I had put it aside since I've been working on an A31p and an X200. I don't know why the battery would have run down that fast (other than the Sanyo cells maybe having a high self-discharge rate). The system was put into hibernate (as I do on all my laptops) so it wasn't a case of being in Standby until the battery ran out.

I grabbed a genuine (as far as I can tell) 6-cell battery out of another X300 and it too was dead but that system has been on the shelf for a couple of months. It also has Sanyo cells. The 3-cell battery still had life in it and it's been sitting around for at least the same amount of time as the Lenovo 6-cell. Guess what brand of cells it has? Well, it's NOT Sanyo. It has Sony cells.

[RealBlackStuff]

Actually, I find myself liking every other release as well, but in the opposite way because I prefer 95, 2000, Vista and 8 over 3.11, 98, XP and 7

So what happened to 'good' old ME?

[91011]

Besides ebay, Techorbit has a website selling batteries but no more x30x.
Their battery may be partially responsible for draining so quickly but genuine Lenovo (also Sanyo cells) show the same behavior – only much more slowly.

Most of my x301 Lenovo batteries are set to start charging at 80% and stop at 95%.
But, even when on AC 24/7, the charge slowly drifts down.
Never clocked it, but I’d say 1% every three days or so.