X300 vs. x61

Message

fritz_the_blank · #1 Post by **fritz_the_blank** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:15 pm

If finances were not an overriding concern but only one factor among many, and given that I would prefer not to buy a docking station, what do you see as the advantages or disadvantages of one system over the other providing I also purchase a portable USB dvd drive.

Thank you for any suggestions,

FtB

computerpro3 · #2 Post by **computerpro3** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:12 pm

We won't be able to know certain things until we have it in our hands, but from what it looks like:

x61 Pro's: Faster processor, longer battery life (supposedly), smaller overall footprint

Cons: 1024x768 resolution is next to useless. Aging 4:3 aspect ratio, although some people prefer it. A little bit thicker, but not much. Louder due to hard drive noise (vs ssd which is dead silent). No touchpad, no built in optical

X300 Pro's: 64GB SSD drive, 13in LED backlit widescreen, wimax, GPS, touchpad and trackpoint, built in optical drive

Cons: Price, some may not like widescreen, slower processor, possibly battery life

For me it's a no-brainer; I was about to pull the trigger on the X61 and compromise, when I saw the announcement for the X300. The x300 is quite literally exactly what I wanted in a laptop.

hyperq · #3 Post by **hyperq** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:21 pm

I was hoping to see a DVI port on the new X300. Too bad that X300 still comes with the 25 year old VGA port. When will thinkpad designers notice that we all use LCDs nowadays. They can put a DVI-I port on it, to stay compatible with VGA monitors.

qviri · #4 Post by **qviri** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:09 pm

computerpro3 wrote:Cons: Price, some may not like widescreen, slower processor, possibly battery life

For battery life, the X61s offers a choice of batteries that give 28.8 Wh, 37.4 Wh, and 74.8 Wh for 4-cell slim, 4-cell, and 8-cell respectively. The X300 battery is 43.2 Wh according to the other thread. I am guessing that X300's slower CPU and LED backlight will lower the power draw a little bit, so the battery life should should be somewhere between X61s's 4-cell and 8-cell. I would be very surprised and impressed if it managed to equal the 8-cell's life.

(FWIW, design capacity of X31 batteries is around 47 Wh. Disappointing to see the much-newer X61 not being able to better this without the battery sticking out. Isn't battery technology supposed to improve?)

Ken Fox · #5 Post by **Ken Fox** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:49 pm

computerpro3 wrote:We won't be able to know certain things until we have it in our hands, but from what it looks like:

Cons: 1024x768 resolution is next to useless. Aging 4:3 aspect ratio, although some people prefer it.

I'm sorry. This is just soooooooo silly.

I've amassed a collection of X's and T's whose number is (to be honest) a bit embarrassing at this point, and I've disgorged myself of a number of models over time as well.

I could say that 15" laptops are simply too big and "useless," but then that would just be my own personal opinion based on not liking to lug big and heavy laptops. But I won't say THAT, because that is silly.

I personally find the 16/9 format to be "useless" for any sort of real work, although some might like to watch movies in that form factor. The 16/9 screen size was adopted by laptop makers largely because the screens are CHEAPER in that format, not because they are "better" in any way. I daresay that most people doing any sort of serious work with a laptop prefer the "aging" 4/3 size because using it requires less scrolling.

As to screen resolution, a very large proportion of people in this world cannot read text on a 14", 4/3 screen at SXGA+ resolution. This does not seem in my experience to be age-dependent, as I know young and old people who have told me this. And we all know that the fixes for this problem are imperfect, everything from trying to adjust font sizes, program to program, and or using LCD screens at non-native resolutions, which severely degrades image quality.

12" 4/3 screens at XGA resolution, such as found on X60s and X61s (and X31s and X32s), are a compromise in pixel density between 14" XGA screens and 14" SXGA+ screens. They are a compromise that for many people provides a very readable and pleasant screen resolution for using at the native resolution.

15" 4/3 SXGA+ screens in the 4/3 format provide a fairly similar readability to many as do XGA screens on 12" 4/3 screens.

Personally, I find 12" XGA to be quite usable and only very slightly less desireable than 14" SXGA+ screens, whereas 14" XGA would for me be painful to use.

Instead of labeling any of this stuff as "good" and "bad," or whatever qualifying and loaded terminology one might choose to use, it would be much more useful (and honest) to realize that this is 100% a subjective preference based in large part on the eyesight of the user at the distance that they prefer to use a screen from their eyes. It is nothing more nor less than this, and any value judgments about what is "better" or "worse" or tolerable or intolerable are just plain silly. When people ask my opinion of what they should get in a screen, I tell them to go to a big box store and look at a lot of screens. Most people will have no difficulty, when presented with choices, of finding the screen size and resolution that best fits their own visual acuity, which is usually different than the screen sizes and resolutions that I would choose to buy if I were buying the laptop myself.

ajkula66 · #6 Post by **ajkula66** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:52 am

To Ken Fox:

You've said a lot of stuff that I feel myself, but haven't had the time to articulate it as well as you have. Great job.

On a whole another note, I don't really see a raison d'etre for comparison that this thread is all about. From where I stand, it's pretty much like comparing Carrera and Cayenne. Both are Porsches, but that's pretty much where similarity ends. Their target markets are very different, and I've expressed the same opinion on X61s vs. X300.

What I'm really interested in when in comes to X300 is the quality of LCD. As much as I'm not crazy about widescreens, the resolution looks about right, and LED backlighting may be easy enough on one's eyes yet precise. That remains to be seen.

For the old-fashioned-me, I'd gladly take X300 with a regular SATA HDD, and no touchpad if it would slash the price drastically. The way things are now, I won't be able to justify having a laptop in this price range anytime soon...

Having said that, I still think that it's the move in the right direction, and am certain that it will do well on the market, regardless of price.

In the meantime, I just might have to get myself an X61s to play with...which has turned out to be my favourite X series since X24...

Just my $0.02, obviously.

computerpro3 · #7 Post by **computerpro3** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 1:37 am

Ken Fox wrote:
computerpro3 wrote:Note from Admin: Snipped excessive, nested quoting.

You are correct and I should have articulated better.

Having owned a 1024x768 laptop before I didn't like having to scroll for thirty minutes side to side on webpages, or whenever there were pictures on the screen. Powerpoint is also annoying as you can't view the organization pane and a full size slide. Excel is annoying as you can't view a decent size spreadsheet. Word is annoying because you can only see half a page at a time.

I also found the fonts too large and couldn't stand not being able to open two browser windows at once (I have 4 open all the time on my desktop).

I suppose the difference was even more drastic for me though, as my desktop has a 30in monitor at 2560x1600.

You are right in that I should have put a disclaimer saying that some people may prefer the lower resolution. Nonetheless, it is a simple fact that that low of a resolution is getting antiquated in terms of what web content is designed for. The latest statistics indicate that just over 65% of people browse at resolutions above 1024x768.

Not to mention the fact that with their next computer purchase, 99% of them will be getting screens larger than 1024x768. Remember when content used to be designed for 800x600? Not anymore. In a few years, browsing at 1024x768 will be equally unsupported.

#8 Post by **aamsel** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:27 am

Ken Fox wrote:...I tell them to go to a big box store and look at a lot of screens. Most people will have no difficulty, when presented with choices, of finding the screen size and resolution that best fits their own visual acuity, which is usually different than the screen sizes and resolutions that I would choose to buy if I were buying the laptop myself.

I agree with a lot of this, except that almost every laptop in a big box store is 1280 X 800, and is anything from 11.1 to 15.4" widescreen. I went to Best Buy, Circuit City and FRY's one day, trying to find a 14.1" WXGA+ screen to see without any luck. They didn't even have a 15.4" screen above WXGA 1280 X 800, which has become the standard notebook resolution and screen size in any store.

My eyes have also not been happy with my 4:3 SXGA+ 14.1" T60 in the past year, even though I have the better Hydis panel. I have wondered if a 16:10 14.1" WXGA+ would be better, with its slightly lower DPI density, since I hate to drop down to a 16:10 14.1" WXGA panel.

I also have been considering the X300, although the DPI would be really far too high, as you suggested. I had expected VISTA to be truly scalable in terms of all font sizes, some of it is, some isn't, just like XP.

The X61s would be perfect for me, and I would already own one, but I am one of the few here who wants/needs a trackpad. I just have never become one with the trackpoint.

Andrew

miketl · #9 Post by **miketl** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:42 am

I think that a closer comparison will be the X200 v. X61. From the pictures available, it looks like they stretched the X61, giving it a full-size keyboard and widescreen display (still no touch pad). I don't think it's crazy to say it will be 1280x800.

Some questions remain about how the X200 will further distinguish itself from the X61. Will there be a built-in optical drive? Will there be a tablet version? A webcam? Battery options? What's the price?

Maybe we'll learn more on Feb. 26 when Lenovo is rumored to announce some new hardware.

I agree on a lot of the remarks about the screen resolution. XGA has a great DPI at 12". I have adjusted to it very well, but had to simplify my desktop and use most windows maximized. Now I feel that it is well worth making the adjustment in exchange for the increased mobility of the platform.

On a somewhat related note, has anyone here tried going to a retailer lately to find a notebook with matte display?

pianowizard · #10 Post by **pianowizard** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:18 am

Ken Fox wrote:Instead of labeling any of this stuff as "good" and "bad," or whatever qualifying and loaded terminology one might choose to use, it would be much more useful (and honest) to realize that this is 100% a subjective preference

Please look at the OP's post. He did ask for our personal, subjective ("what do you see...") opinions of the two Thinkpads.

I've been on various forums for over a decade and have learned that whenever someone says "this is good" or "that is useless", it always means "in my opinion, this is good" or "in my opinion, that is useless". So I have learned not to feel offended by any of these statements. In fact I prefer them over including the disclaimer "this is just my opinion" in every sentence.

As far as computerpro3's list of pros and cons, I think he did an excellent job.

Ken Fox · #11 Post by **Ken Fox** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:18 pm

pianowizard wrote:
I've been on various forums for over a decade and have learned that whenever someone says "this is good" or "that is useless", it always means "in my opinion, this is good" or "in my opinion, that is useless". So I have learned not to feel offended by any of these statements. In fact I prefer them over including the disclaimer "this is just my opinion" in every sentence.

As far as computerpro3's list of pros and cons, I think he did an excellent job.

I have personally aided several friends and family members recently who were seeking to buy new laptops. Surprisingly, none of them ended up preferring the screen sizes and/or resolutions that I like the best. This is (mostly) an enthusiasts' forum. When people come seeking opinions on topics like this, which are obviously a matter of personal opinion, it pays to either qualify one's opinions (as opinions) or to not speak them so strongly that the less experienced reader will not interpret such mouthings as being god-given truth.

It is pretty obvious that when someone asks questions about such issues that they don't have the experience level that some of the more frequent posters in these forums might have.

fritz_the_blank · #12 Post by **fritz_the_blank** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:42 pm

Thank you to all for posting your insightful comments.

When making a major purchase, it is always disappointing not to have thought of something important to the way you work, so I find opinions just as relevant as any other post.

A little more information:

I own a Gateway FPD2185w monitor that I use when I am at my desk, so for larger projects, I have a good deal of screen real estate. Nonetheless, I do have some concern for the quality of the LCD panel on the laptop.

I currently own an aging T42-2378, but I am getting a pink tinge on the screen at boot and at wakeup. Since I use my laptop daily and extensively, I want to have a replacement in mind before my current computer fails.

I really love the pointer and do not use the touchpad at all. As for the DVD drive; I don't use it that often, but need it periodically when teaching (I teach music history at the university level).

In terms of transporting the laptop, I think that width is more important than footprint as it always goes in my brief case. The weight, however, is a very important concern.

I don't often work on battery power, so I could get by with the smaller battery most of the time, and perhaps buy a larger battery for plane travel and etc.

Thank you once again for posting,

FtB

hyperq · #13 Post by **hyperq** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 1:52 pm

Many people have complained that text on new LCD panels are too small. Here is a chart that shows the ppi numbers of common screen sizes. A number between 105-110 seems to be the sweet spot.

http://kevin-pc-hardware.blogspot.com/2 ... ation.html

ajkula66 · #14 Post by **ajkula66** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:02 pm

fritz_the_blank wrote:

I currently own an aging T42-2378, but I am getting a pink tinge on the screen at boot and at wakeup. Since I use my laptop daily and extensively, I want to have a replacement in mind before my current computer fails.

If you're comfortable with your T42, you may want to look into replacing the backlight which would be far cheaper than getting a new machine. Forum member jamiphar offers this service with a 1-year warranty. I've had this done on my "main" A31p and have been extremely pleased with the results.

j-dawg · #15 Post by **j-dawg** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:15 pm

ajkula66 wrote: On a whole another note, I don't really see a raison d'etre for comparison that this thread is all about. From where I stand, it's pretty much like comparing Carrera and Cayenne. Both are Porsches, but that's pretty much where similarity ends. Their target markets are very different, and I've expressed the same opinion on X61s vs. X300.

I dunno. I think the X61 and the X300 fall in essentially the same target market. Owning a 12" X24, and having used and carried around 13" laptops, I don't see much difference between the two form factors, and I think the difference will be further reduced when one considers that the X300 is set to weigh about the same as the current X-series (perhaps more than the X61s, though by a nearly imperceptible amount).

So, if we accept that the current X-series and the X300 are at about the same level in terms of portability (and some people may not accept that, but bear with me), there's not much difference between the two. The X61 can be spec'd out to quite a high price level, and if the X300 were available with a standard HD (which it may eventually be), I can see them both being priced around the same when similarly equipped.

Then we should consider why we are buying such a laptop over, say, a more powerful T61: portability. Since we have postulated that the X61 and the X300 are about as portable as each other, and since the X300 is a more capable machine, most buyers would probably pick an X300 for the extra two or three hundred dollars. Hence, the X300 and the X61 have similar target markets.

Of course, all this hinges on acceptance of the idea that the X300 and X61 have similar portability characteristics. my own experience with 12" and 13" laptops indicate that they do, but I know many people disagree. Still, we scrutinize our Thinkpads; will most of the market think as hard about one inch of screen size as do we?

fritz_the_blank · #16 Post by **fritz_the_blank** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:42 pm

One other thing that will be important to me is external monitor support. I use lcd projectors frequently in class, and I have that large monitor at home. I am eager to see what would work better.

Again, thanks to all for posting,

FtB

snife · #17 Post by **snife** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:00 pm

The battery life is not really an issue for me.

The extended battery may add a bit of weight but not really much height wise due to the wedge shape of the system and you can add the battery to optical slot (they say the drive isn't removable because its too fragile to be casually popped in and out like ultrabay slim but it can be removed and replaced with the battery) and that will give me 10 hours when I dont need an optical drive.

I really like Vista but after seeing the battery life for XP vs Vista on this thing, I might have to switch back to XP cause Vista aint worth an hours battery life.

Jackboot · #18 Post by **Jackboot** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:01 pm

snife wrote:I really like Vista but after seeing the battery life for XP vs Vista on this thing, I might have to switch back to XP cause Vista aint worth an hours battery life.

Keep in mind that battery life tests on the X300 that have been published so far would have been conducted on a pre-SP1 build of Vista. SP1 is purported to have improved battery life, and in some cases, quite significantly.

I think it would be a good idea to ignore the published battery life specs for now and wait to conduct real-world tests before closing the door on Vista.

fritz_the_blank · #19 Post by **fritz_the_blank** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:36 pm

Battery life is the least of my concerns with Vista. I had it on my T42 for about 6 months and couldn't wait to reformat my drive and revert to Windows XP SP2. My computer has been much happier since!

Even if that weren't the case, I use a number of music-based applications and external hardware that are not Vista friendly, so no matter what, I will be with XP for some time to come.

X300 vs. x61

X300 vs. x61

Thank you to all and a little more information

Who is online