why is my x200s so heavy?

[mpelc]

I bought a x200s used... type 7465-CTO. Nice machine (though I like the trackpoint on the HP 2530p better), but I was excited to buy an x200s because the very low weight but good battery life (lenovo specs 2.4/2.7/3.0 lbs with 4/6/9 cell). However mine weighs 2.6 lbs with no battery at all, 3.6 with the 9 cell battery it came with. What could possibly account for an extra half-pound? It is 1280x800 WXGA display with webcam. Processor L9400 1.86GHz, hard drive WD2500BEVS (specs are weight 0.26 lbs). I was at first afraid I actually bought an x200 because of the weight, but it is branded with x200s, and it is a low voltage CPU. Were later models of x200s made heavier?

I weighed using american weigh h-110 (handy and compact).

[erik]

welcome to the forum!

the 1280x800 X200s model is around 0.4 lbs heavier than the 1440x900 model due to the difference in display panel weight and the lid/hinge construction.   you'd need a 1440x900 model if you want the lightest weight configuration.

you can save a bit of weight on yours by going to an SSD.

[ThinkRob]

erik is correct. The X200s models with a WXGA+ screen used a CFRP lid, whilst the X200 and WXGA-equipped X200s models used a magnesium alloy lid (which was slightly heavier.)

An SSD may be a bit lighter, but obviously that'll depend on the SSD that you use.

[Colonel O'Neill]

Or use a SATA-to-CF adapter. XD

[ThinkRob]

Or use a SATA-to-CF adapter. XD

Only if you're the gambling sort of person! Plus, CF cards don't perform anywhere near as well as real SSDs...

[Tony Chan]

Saw this thread and just weighted my 1440x900 x200s on the scale of mail room ( which is pretty accurate ). Here's the result :

x200s with 4 cell battery : 2.65 lb.
x200s with 9 cell battery : 3.25 lb.
9 cell battery alone : 1.10 lb.

The laptop is pretty standard. I've swapped out 2x2gb ram with 2x4gb ram ( shouldn't made any difference ). Replaced Intel 5100n with 5300n ( again, shouldn't made any difference ), and replaced 7200rpm 32Gb HST hard drive with a 90Gb ssd ( if anything, should reduce weight a little ).

May be depends on what brand of battery you got also contribute to a slight difference in weight?

[mpelc]

Thanks for the replies. The screen is the difference, that makes sense.

@Tony: based on that, your high res x200s weighs 2.15 lb w/o battery, vs 2.6 lb for mine... that is probably the 0.4 lb screen difference right there.

I think even the lightest 2.5" SSDs are 60 g = 0.13 lb so replacing the 0.26 lb HD doesn't do a whole lot by itself.

I seem to recall that I had avoided the high res screen x200s because none of them could fit a built-in webcam. So I am thinking perhaps I should sell this x200s and spend a bit more and buy an x220, which is supposed to be 2.9 lbs with a 6 cell, and battery life should be longer too, and has a better (IPS) screen. I will try to find one in person to take a look at.

[Tony Chan]

I've just weighted my x200s without battery and it turn out to be 2.20 lb. I guess the extra piece of ram weights 0.05 lb

As for x220, almost every area is a noticable improvement, except for screen resolution ( 1366 x 768 vs 1440 x 900 for x200s ). I am holding out as long as I can for 16:10 and higher res screen. Wouldn't it be nice that Lenovo comes out with a x220s/x230s with exact same spec, but with 1600 x 900 screen !!!

[Cunha]

16:10 is on its way out for good..we aren't going to see another small laptop with that format I don't think.

[pianowizard]

So I am thinking perhaps I should sell this x200s

Yep, that's what I would do if I were you.

and spend a bit more and buy an x220, which is supposed to be 2.9 lbs with a 6 cell, and battery life should be longer too, and has a better (IPS) screen.

But I would rather get an X201s with 1440x900. 1366x768 is truly pathetic -- I tried to get used to it for about half a year but couldn't.

[Tony Chan]

16:10 is on its way out for good..we aren't going to see another small laptop with that format I don't think.

I know.. I know. I am just dreaming that may be, just may be a 16:9 high res version will eventually be made. Like x200s to regular 200. I don't mind too much about 16:10 vs 16:9 but you got to give me some vertical space. Like pianowizard, I tried to get used to 1366 x 768 but I just can't. Coming from a 1400x1050 T60, I think my minimun vertical is 900.

Have to say though, all the said advantage of x220 features are very tempting. I might change my mind one day and get a x220 ( or, better yet, a x230 !! ).

Btw, welcome to the forum mpelc!!

[Cunha]

Yeah. I'm still using my X61s every day. I got my wife an X200 and I could easily get used to that resolution. Havent encountered an X220 yet though. I like all the X series honestly.