#17
Post
by jvarszegi » Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:28 am
I don't think that's a bad deal, half the price for half the processing performance, if the processing performance is adequate. The machine is obviously aimed at office-type workers who want an ultraportable on a budget, and it delivers.
If you want to talk about spreading the cost over multiple years, you can apply that thinking to any purchase. Why not max out every possible option and get the most expensive machine you can afford? The obvious answer is that you don't need every last option; you buy the best value for your needs.
How is spreading a half-cost option over multiple years somehow "less favorable"? It's half the cost per year, if you like, instead of half the cost at time of purchase. Of course, actually spreading the cost of any purchase over multiple years would usually involve financing at extra cost.
There's nothing magical about a particular processor or speed. Laptops have always been offered with a range of different processing options, on a pricing continuum. Just like buying a car, you buy what you need. And just like buying a car (I believe you may be partial to Mustangs, for example), extra power may be wasted if it would not offer an actual functional advantage in day-to-day use of a machine. A car that accelerates to 100 MPH quickly is not more future-proof just because of that than a slower-accelerating car; the speed limit is the same for your Mustang and a Toyota Tercel or whatever your comparison point is.
I'm loving my X100e despite the fact it only has a single core-- that's hypothetically a quarter the processing power of your proposed competitor, which of course is simply not comparable; it's twice the price for a machine in a different class.
I think what you're missing is that enough is enough when it comes to performance. I don't use it for anything where the humble processing power of the MV-40 is exceeded, or nearly so (see the report above, showing the machine is clearly adequate for office work at least). I do a lot of office work, which is what the machine seems to be intended for. Someone with robust processing needs probably would not be best served by a stripped-down X201, either; they might be better served by maxing out the processor, RAM etc. But for the vast majority of office workers, processing needs have not increased in proportion to available processor speeds. You may have a different experience if you really do use ginormous spreadsheets that max out your current T61's processor on a regular basis; that means you need more of a workstation than a lower-performance budget machine, and should look elsewhere.
In terms of buying for an office, half the price is also a pretty compelling proposition. You can equip two workers with a Thinkpad that lets them get their work done, on warranty, instead of just one worker. Companies tend to not worry whether their workers can play the latest games. And except for a salesperson, uber-battery life is not that important. So for a lot of people, and especially the business people that form the most traditional Thinkpad market, an X100e may well be a more compelling value than even the cheapest X201. This is even more so when you factor in the excellent keyboard and the size of this smallest current Thinkpad.
In my opinion it's a bargain. It seems to be in demand, so they must be doing something right. It would be interesting to see sales figures of the X100e.
What I hear you saying, over and over on this board, is "I don't like it", in between suggesting various perceived faults of the machine. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Until you actually have at least touched one, I think you aren't getting the full picture on the actual usefulness of the machine.
Homepage
Forum
Drivers
HMM
MTM
Feed
.
