Thinkpad X30 vs. Asus EeePC 900

[virge]

I currently have an X30 (1GB RAM, 1.06GHz PIII CPU) that I've "upgraded" with a 8GB ZIF SSD. This is an MLC SSD with sequential read at 24.5MB/sec and write at 4.4MB/sec. This drive was added using a 2.5" to ZIF adapter as per the example at Subject: IDE HDD CF/SSD storage benchmark in a X30 **PIC**

I just purchased the EeePC from charles.atcher that was listed at http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=78636. I have also ordered a 2GB SODIMM and am eagerly awaiting the arrival of both (despite the fact that I am immensely busy at work and wont be able to play with them!).

I'm unfamiliar with the EeePC except for what I've read online. Never held or used one. Charles was kind enough to tell me that the RAM and SSD are upgradeable in this machine. Battery life is comparable, but I have no idea about the actual performance. I haven't been able to find any benchmarks on the removable 4GB SSD. There are versions with the 4GB soldered and a separate slot for another SSD, but in those the removable SSD has been slower than the primary. I am planning to wipe the 4GB and put XP on it if performance is comparable to my X30. The X30 does have a delay after XP loads-- my understanding is that this is due to the slow write speed (too small of a buffer?).

If anyone has experience with this particular model EeePC or if you just have an opinion, I would like to hear it. Thanks for your input.

[mikeh]

The eeepc CPU is a reduced-cache pentium-M, and would be comparable to your P-III.
But RAM and SSD will be faster in the EEE.
Biggest plus for the X30 is screen and keyboard. Minus is weight and no USB-2 IIRC.

What is your question?

[virge]

mikeh- thanks for your input regarding the CPU comparison. That seems to be the general consensus.

To clarify, I am specifically looking for any data on the performance of the removable 4GB SSD in the EeePC. I'm thinking that will be the main factor affecting performance (as compared to the X30). If its too slow for XP, then I would like to get a replacement ordered.

[tomh009]

To clarify, I am specifically looking for any data on the performance of the removable 4GB SSD in the EeePC. I'm thinking that will be the main factor affecting performance (as compared to the X30). If its too slow for XP, then I would like to get a replacement ordered.

If it's too slow ... doing what kinds of tasks? Is this just for web browsing, or something else?

[mikeh]

To clarify, I am specifically looking for any data on the performance of the removable 4GB SSD in the EeePC.

You'll probably have to try it, but I suspect its the same as the 4GB in the 701-SDX. I measured that to read as fast as my desktop.
Slower than an expensive SSD, but lots faster than a laptop HDD or USB thumbdrive.
This helps with bootup speed, but I doubt you'll notice any difference in normal use due to RAM caching, especially as you have 1GB. That's a lot for XP.
I use Linux - am I assuming too much about the ability of XP to use RAM cache?

[virge]

I measured that to read as fast as my desktop.
Slower than an expensive SSD, but lots faster than a laptop HDD or USB thumbdrive.

That's good news. I think the SSD in my X30 is just a little bit faster than the 120GB 5400RPM drive I had before. If the 4GB is at least that fast, then I won't need to upgrade the 4GB SSD-- I have a 30mb/sec SDHC card that I intend to use as secondary storage. Hopefully the reader in the EeePC will be able to take advantage of that extra speed. I haven't been able to determine that yet.

Any idea as to which has the better video?

[mikeh]

The eee SHDC reader seems OK, unlike the dead-slow one in my X40 thinkpad.

What sort of video? And why would it matter? You don't plan on playing the latest 3D games on these, do you?

[virge]

The eee SHDC reader seems OK, unlike the dead-slow one in my X40 thinkpad.

What sort of video? And why would it matter? You don't plan on playing the latest 3D games on these, do you?

Yeah, the CF reader in the X30 is quite slow too. Might have something to do with my CF/SDHC adapter, though. I don't have a good CF card to try it. I'll have to test out the EeePC reader when I get it. I'll be stoked if it can hit 30mb/sec.

As for video.... no I don't have any gaming plans for it. I stopped when I got out of college. That was about the time of Warcraft II and Age of Empires II. I think the requirements were Pentium I, 166Mhz? Haven't had any urge to continue with PC games. Mostly concerned about flash video, but I think it'll be okay. My X30 can just barely handle full screen hulu.

[nebpehtira]

I've not used the EEEpc, but have used an MSI Wind. I got an x40 to replace it, as it was stolen. I did try out a lot of netbooks before buying, and found in power they were all much the same, so I guess this may e of help to you.

It was used or uni work, so mainly word processing, PDF reading, some light image editing, and web based research.

The Atom 1.6Ghz CPU feels broadly comparable to the Pentium M 1.4Ghz in the X40. Certainlly the X40 doesn't feel any slower in day to day use when it comes to CPU work. The graphics on both are perfectly adequate for anything you can realistically ask of the system. However the X40 has better graphics by virtue of having a proper 12.1" screen which gives a much more usable resolution (1024x768), and is much much more readable.

Ergonomics are much better on the X40. I tried an EEE keyboard, and it doesn't compare to the X40s in any way at all. The x40 keyboard is fantastic. I also much prefer the trackpoint to a touchpad, but it's an individual thing. If you like touchpads, you will hate the X40, and if you like trackpoints you will hate the EEEpc.

Depending on if it's your main computer, the X40 docking station is a bonus, as it makes for less hassle if you have scanners and printers and optical drives connected.

Bad thing about the X40 is standard battery life is poor compared to netbook. Looses.

Build quality... X40 wins. Much much better quality, I'm still getting over it. I'm VERY impressed

Size.... X40 looses in width and length, but it's very very slender, directly comparable. Not been a big a factor as I thought it would, to be honest. Since I normally carry A4 or larger sized books or folders with my laptop anyway, I've realised it doesn't make that much difference whether the computer is also that size or less. But the x40 is probably about the maximum convenient size. Anything more and it become more than just another wedge of papers.

Weight... X40 looses, slightly, though you'd be hard put to actually notice the difference in weight in your bag.

Upgrades... You can't do much to upgrade a netbook, but apparently the X40 is slightly weird under the hood as well (what kind of sociopath designs a laptop with a 1.8" drive design, AND sticks the connectors on back to front?), so you can't do that much with either of them.

As someone who spends a lot of time sitting a my computer writing, I'd say the X40, if you can't afford a more modern one of the X class. Failing that, a netbook is OK, BUT consider the HP2140 or the Samsung NC10 over the EEE, better keyboards, better screens, and most of all, much better build.

[virge]

Tthe EeePC 900 with the Celeron M processor was actually pretty quick. After tweaking, the 4GB SSD in it ran as well as the 8GB SSD in my X30. Neither great, but still "faster" for my day to day use than a mechanical drive. Whereas the X30 had problems with full screen hulu, the EeePC did not. That was the biggest noticeable difference in performance.

For use browsing and typing of course, the X30 wins outright. Bigger screen, much nicer keyboard, and a trackpoint.

So balancing size (physical size more important to me than weight for ultraportables) vs usability, I decided to stay with the X30. The EeePC is out on permanent loan to my sister. She likes the touchbad better than trackpoint, and uses it for web-browsing and not much typing.

The X40 seems like a good middle ground, but seems to flimsy. I see way too many X40 machines with hot spots on the LCDs. This would seem to indicate that the lid isn't rigid enough.

[ajkula66]

virge wrote:

The X40 seems like a good middle ground, but seems to flimsy. I see way too many X40 machines with hot spots on the LCDs. This would seem to indicate that the lid isn't rigid enough.

Well, that's what you get when you try to lose weight even in places where you need it...

All jokes aside, as nice as X4x units are in certain respects, I'd save a few more bucks and get a X60, preferably X60s...

To me personally, the biggest jump was from X24 to X31. While I still consider the X2x to be the perfect form factor when it comes to X series, battery life and overall performance of X31 were notably superior. X30 never did anything for me, since I found it to be flimsier than X24, but the battery life was much already improved at that point in the game...

I would've made the same choice that you have, BTW...