Weights of X series...increasing?

Message

bobdsmith · #1 Post by **bobdsmith** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:03 am

Hey guys. I'm just wondering...are the X series weights going UP? I picked up my old X40 earlier today, and I noticed that it was noticably lighter than my X61s (both with their 8 cell batts)...

Also, I hear that the new X200 ( engadget ) that the X200 is 2.93 lbs as compared to the (I believe but not 100% sure 2.7 lbs X60.

Am I imagining things, or has anyone else noticed this trend?

makai · #2 Post by **makai** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:15 am

Large men never worry about .23 pounds!

pianowizard · #3 Post by **pianowizard** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:16 am

bobdsmith wrote:I picked up my old X40 earlier today, and I noticed that it was noticably lighter than my X61s (both with their 8 cell batts)...

That's because your X61s doesn't have the Utlralight LCD. An X60s or X61s with the Ultralight screen weighs about 0.1 lb less than the X40.

bobdsmith wrote:Also, I hear that the new X200 ( engadget ) that the X200 is 2.93 lbs

2.93 lb is the weight of the 13.3" 1440x900 X300 without an optical drive. The article you linked to probably confused the weight of the X200 with that of the X300. The X200, being smaller than the X300, should weigh less than 2.93 lb.

snessiram · #4 Post by **snessiram** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:37 pm

According to this link found in this thread started by ryengineer, the lightiest X200 would be 2.47 lbs (1.12 kg).

j-dawg · #5 Post by **j-dawg** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:38 pm

My X61t is actually quite heavy for its size, considerably heavier than my X24. But my X61 is a tablet, has the SXGA+ screen, and has the 8-cell battery, all of which add to the weight.

rhema83 · #6 Post by **rhema83** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:34 am

I paid less than a grand for my 3.1-lb X61. For that money, I don't think you can get anything lighter (besides the sub-notebooks like the EEE). Remember when the X31 cost $2000?

awolfe63 · #7 Post by **awolfe63** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:16 pm

Displays are getting larger - but the big issue is that CPU's are getting more powerful and consuming more power. This means - larger heat sink and fan and larger battery - both heavy.

Jason404 · #8 Post by **Jason404** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:33 pm

My X31 weighs 1.64 kg (3.6 lb), so weight has pretty much gone down a bit, and my X31 is not heavy. I hope build quality does not go down. My X40 really does not feel as rugged as my X31.

While I am disappointed with the WXGA resolution of the X200 (I was hoping for more), I cannot wait for it to come out!

bobdsmith · #9 Post by **bobdsmith** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:11 pm

Hmm yeah, I did a little more reading on the X200...

It also looks wide screened...

Looks like they are scrapping the good ol' 4:3 eh?

tyanlion · #10 Post by **tyanlion** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:45 am

dammn u ultralight screen. if i only could get u!

bobdsmith · #11 Post by **bobdsmith** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:11 am

1. Buy ultralight screen off ebay
2. PM me and I'll walk you through installation

did it myself when my old screen cracked

Jason404 · #12 Post by **Jason404** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:43 am

bobdsmith wrote:Looks like they are scrapping the good ol' 4:3 eh?

Yes, and it's terrible news if its just WXGA resolution, which it looks like it is going to be. I might actually just get a X60s and forget about the X200, especially if I can somehow upgrade it with GPS!

pianowizard · #13 Post by **pianowizard** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:05 am

Jason404 wrote:Yes, and it's terrible news if its just WXGA resolution, which it looks like it is going to be. I might actually just get a X60s

Why would you get an X60s, which only has 1024x768, when you complain about WXGA (1280x800) being too low?

For me, 1280x800 is much more useful than 1024x768 in terms of real estate.

bobdsmith · #14 Post by **bobdsmith** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:31 am

*shrug, I really like the 4:3 aspect ratio, despite everyone talking about multitasking and video watching. I'll miss it when its gone.

Jason404 · #15 Post by **Jason404** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:31 am

Because I don't find that aspect ratio very ergonomic at these low resolutions. I was hoping for more vertical resolution as well, like the X300 or many other small notebooks. X-Series ThinkPads are not for watching movies!

For example, I usually maximise IE on an XGA screen (but not on my desktop monitors with very high resolutions - I'm an architect working with CAD), but maximising IE on a WXGA screen leaves you with a lot of wasted space*, unless you open the left-hand favourites/history panel. It will be more useful with Outlook though.

It's not that I see it so much as a negative, but it's not really a positive for me, so the much cheaper X60s may be a better option for me.

* any half-decent webdesigner has only quite recently started using 1024px (minus 'browser chrome' space) the default width for sites. It was 800px mostly until a couple of years ago. And, no , I am not including liquid layouts, or plain HTML, which is unreadable on maximised widescreen with a single column of text, anyway.

sxr71 · #16 Post by **sxr71** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:28 am

Jason404 wrote:well, like the X300 or many other small notebooks. X-Series ThinkPads are not for watching movies!

Most true thing I've read all day.

zzzname · #17 Post by **zzzname** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:56 am

I watch movies on my 1Ghz x40 and I don't really see any problem with that.

tomz17 · #18 Post by **tomz17** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:46 pm

Agreed... my x60 feels very noticeably heavier than my x40 (both 8 cell).

gunston · #19 Post by **gunston** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:53 am

x60s is lighter than x40

kunfuchopsticks · #20 Post by **kunfuchopsticks** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:05 am

snessiram wrote:According to this link found in this thread started by ryengineer, the lightiest X200 would be 2.47 lbs (1.12 kg).

I don't think this is true.

Weights of X series...increasing?

Weights of X series...increasing?

Re: Weights of X series...increasing?

Who is online