backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by Cullinaire.. on Aug 20 at 11:53 AM

Lenovo upgrades its ThinkPad X300 ultra-portable

When Apple launched its MacBook Air 13.3” ultra-portable notebook earlier this year, it took the computing world by storm. The notebook didn’t impress people with high-end specifications or an overabundance of features or connectivity options – most were dazzled by the notebook’s sleek aluminum design/construction and slim profile.

Unbeknownst to most people, Lenovo was working on its own thin, lightweight ultra-portable of its own which it was aiming at the business sector (and comically at Apple’s MacBook Air). The Lenovo ThinkPad X300 launched in mid-February with a 1.2GHz Core 2 Duo processor, 13.3” LED-backlit display, 64GB solid state drive (SSD), optional built-in optical drive, and optional WWAN.

Lenovo is now ready to give its ThinkPad X300 a makeover in the form of the new ThinkPad 301. While the original ThinkPad X300 featured an ULV 1.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo SL7100 processor, the new ThinkPad X301 will come equipped with either an ULV Intel Core 2 Duo U9300 (1.2GHz) or U9400 (1.4GHz) processor. Lenovo is also adding support for DDR3 memory.

The 64GB SSD remains standard equipment for storage duties, but an optional 128GB SSD is now on the options sheet for those that require more space. The ThinkPad X301 also supports DisplayPort and models coming later this year will also take advantage of WiMAX.

"Lenovo continues to push the technology envelope by giving road warriors the latest enhancements in solid state drive storage and digital display technologies with the new ThinkPad X301 notebook PC," said Sam Dusi, vice president, worldwide notebook product marketing for Lenovo. "This announcement extends our commitment to blending ultraportability and functionality, and equipping today’s business users with the most advanced, highest-performing computing tools."

The Lenovo ThinkPad X301 will start at $2,599 when it launches on August 26.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By xNIBx on 8/18/2008 8:27:46 AM , Rating: 2
I was always a big fan of ibm(lenovo) laptops. This laptop seems to be the ultimate office on the go. People who are complaining about the cpu seem to ignore that we are talking about an ultra low voltage 45nm cpu with a 10w TDP . This will offer insane amount of battery life which is exactly what a "warrior on the road" needs.




By kelmon on 8/18/2008 9:12:24 AM , Rating: 2
No, I don't think we're ignoring this but I am personally wondering whether it is too much of a compromise. Ultimately, I need to get work done within an acceptable period of time so I don't want to be waiting for the computer to catch-up. If the laptop can keep up whilst maximising battery life then that's great, I'm just concerned that I'm going to be looking at the hourglass or unresponsive application more than I want to be.


By ss284 on 8/18/2008 9:55:09 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly, what the hell could you possibly doing that's CPU intensive on this laptop while on the plane?

All the MS office apps run great on SSD, and aren't CPU limited. I could understand some excel scripting taking some CPU power, but nothing a core2duo couldn't handle, even at these lower speeds. This laptop is for email, internet, word, powerpoint and watching the occasional DVD; just about everything a mobile professional does.

If you are doing anything else, its likely you need a different laptop, and no, the macbook air won't cut it.


By wien on 8/18/2008 10:48:58 AM , Rating: 2
A 1.4 C2D would beat the living crap out of your old P4. You won't be watching software decoded Blu-Ray movies at 1080p of course, but as long as you have enough memory these things are more than enough for basic office use (I have a 1.5GHz C2D Thinkpad myself).


By ss284 on 8/18/2008 10:59:39 AM , Rating: 2
I've worked on a dell m1330 with a t5250 (1.5 ghz) core2duo and it was more than enough for vista, even with aero. I did however, upgrade to a t7300(2.0 ghz) so I could software decode 1080p h.264 files over the hdmi out. I don't believe the average person, much less the average businessman would need to be decoding 1080p files on a 720p screen.

All in all, the speed should be sufficient, especially with a nice SSD for productivity apps.


By pauldovi on 8/18/2008 12:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
This laptop is not competitor to the MBP, it is a lot smaller than one. It is not designed to be a power house. Shop for a Lenovo T500, Dell M4400, or Dell E6500 if you want something that smashes the MBP.


By pauldovi on 8/18/2008 3:28:18 PM , Rating: 1
I am not sure about the MBP being perfect?

I mean, do you really like 6 bit screens that much?

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/3676/laptopsver...


By Pirks on 8/18/2008 3:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
do you really like 6 bit screens that much?
All the other notebooks besides Macs use 6 bit screens too. So what?


By kelmon on 8/19/2008 2:56:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mean, do you really like 6 bit screens that much?


In an ideal world the screen would be of the same sort of quality as used in the LaCie and NEC monitors for photographic work. However, it's as good as you'll get with a laptop and it hasn't been turned glossy, which is always a plus. So, I guess the answer to your question is "yes".


By Pirks on 8/18/2008 3:31:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
nothing smashes the MBP
Woah, woah. If you never tried to run some pretty games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or Crysis on MBP - you better stop making those funny assumptions, okay?


By littlebitstrouds on 8/18/2008 6:11:40 PM , Rating: 3
I had a sharp um12w laptop with a pIII running at 1.0ghz and that thing flew with xp on it... because I kept it clean. Telling me you had a 1.6 Pentium 4 that was sluggish with xp tells me you don't know how to keep your computer running well, hence why you should buy an apple.

If apple fanbois spent half the time they spend reading propaganda and actually use that time to learn how to use windows, something tells me there wouldn't be so many fanbois.


By noirsoft on 8/19/2008 12:29:11 AM , Rating: 2
1) The Vista interface is as "elegant, beautiful and intuitive" as the MacOSX interface. Moreso, in my opinion. So was XP. It's all a matter of opinion: stop trying to pretend it isn't. They both work, and neither is "better" -- only "preferable" to an individual.

2) If you need to use the command prompt that much, you are probably better served with a Unix-based system. I am a software developer, and the total amount of time I have spent needing the CLI since XP came out is less than one hour. Yes, they should fix it, as it is a bit of a PR embarrasement, but it is rightfully low on the priority scale.

3) Default Vista user runs everything as a non-administrator. Or are you complaining that you want to type in your password (like on the Mac) instead of hitting "OK" for a UAC prompt?


By Pirks on 8/19/2008 4:03:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Vista interface is as "elegant, beautiful and intuitive" as the MacOSX interface.
Bullsh1t. Just try this: press F11 on a Mac and press Win-D on Vista. See now?
quote:
Default Vista user runs everything as a non-administrator
Unfortunately, if you have to make just one click in UAC dialog to become admin - you ARE admin.


By noirsoft on 8/19/2008 4:56:02 PM , Rating: 2
So your opinion is that pressing a completely un-mnemonic "f11" to see the desktop is more "intuitive" than pressing "Win+D(esktop)"? Or are you arguing that it is more "elegant" when using a keyboard shortcut to see all the animations?

Or maybe you are simply arguing that your desktop image is more "beautiful" than mine. I give up.

quote:
Unfortunately, if you have to make just one click in UAC dialog to become admin - you ARE admin.

That makes no logical sense. If I have to do something to become admin, then, by definition, I am not admin. Do you go around saying "If you have to paint something blue, then is was blue to begin with"? Is this some kind of Apple Zen philosophy that I need to get used to?

"If I have to patch a piece of software to make it work, then it was already working." That's deep, man.

Back to reality, the default user in Vista is an "administrator" by name, yes, but everything run by that user account is done so with the same permissions as a standard user. That is not the same as an XP administrator account or running things as root in Unix.


By Pirks on 8/19/2008 10:01:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Or are you arguing that it is more "elegant" when using a keyboard shortcut to see all the animations?
Apparently you haven't noticed how ugly flickering Vista Aero is when you press Win-D twice (compare it with perfect smoothness of Mac OS X interface), and how it likes to mess up your window Z-order when you bring application windows back by pressing Win-D twice. Whatever. Windows lovers are always blind to Windows bugs and ugliness, this is 100% normal.
quote:
If I have to do something to become admin, then, by definition, I am not admin
That's just a formal definition that has nothing in common with sad reality - that is users quickly learning to blindly click through numerous annoying UAC dialogs, essentially behaving exactly the same way they behaved in XP with its infamous "admin by default" policy, which is the same in Vista. All those secutrity "improvements" quickly evaporated when tested by real life, just like many other MS "ideas" that sounded gorgeous and sexy in theory... but fell flat just like UAC did :)

P.S. hey I can also list a couple of the same brain dead totally fcked up "features" in Mac OS X (windows resizable only by the corner, lack of maximize button for every window, lack of folder sharing in Tiger, etc etc) but I feel like poking MS today, sorry :)

In the end Mac OS X is not less braindead and stupid than Vista, it's just some tradeoffs, where Mac OS X wins in UI elegance and polish - it loses and falls flat when we start talking about functionality and comfort. Which is not going to stop my complaints about certain manifestations of Vista ugliness :)


By DragonMaster0 on 8/19/2008 12:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Man, you'd think Redmond idiots would learn in 10 years how to make console text windows resizable all the way (height _AND_ WIDTH!) and with easy click-once copy/paste.
They do.

Click-once copy/paste? Right-click the title bar, click properties. Check QuickEdit Mode. Note that it was the default setting for Windows 2000. You select the text and right-click to copy. If you just right-click, it pastes.

Resize window? In the 2nd and 3rd tabs, you can adjust the font size and number of rows/cols. It's maybe a little manual, but better than using "mode" under DOS.

quote:
It's 2008 and Windows still can't properly transfer files over gigabit network without throttling MP3 playback and vice versa.
You know how to disable QoS? Easy thing. Note that this feature is enabled under OS X too, and that XP was made in 2001, when people was stuck with 100mbit and a lot of people still had 10mbit networks. QoS was useful.

quote:
You'd think they make UAC not popping up many times for the same operation.
How fun's going root all the time under Unix/Linux/OS X? IMO I see people complaining about this because Windows users never had to live with this UNIX feature from hell.


By Pirks on 8/19/2008 9:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You know how to disable QoS?
You're very naive if you think that morons from Redmond just forgot to turn off QoS. It's actually much worse: http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2...

I can't believe this! No surprise Unix and especially Mac OS X fcks Windows in every position just like that, especially among techie and professional community. People just got tired of MS shoving crap down their throat. What kind of crap - it's explaied in the blog post of Mark Russinovich above. Enjoy :P
quote:
How fun's going root all the time under Unix/Linux/OS X?
Now why am I seeing Mac OS X root password dialogs much less frequently than I see UAC dialogs in Vista? Try explain THIS, smarty ;)


By kelmon on 8/19/2008 3:11:34 AM , Rating: 2
Oh dear. There's a few problems here that you might want to address. Firstly, at no point in my statement did I say my old P4 ran XP sluggishly. I believe that the term I used was "OK". Please learn to read.

Secondly, why should anyone need to "know how to keep your computer running well"? Is this a good thing? Do you consider it a badge of honor that you know how to defrag your hard drive and disable unused services? We're all well aware that Windows, typically, needs to be reinstalled about once per year if you use it a lot because XP and older, at least, slows down. This is 2008 and do you still think this is acceptable? No one using a modern desktop operating system designed for the general public should have to know how to "keep it running well". Yes, I was very much aware of how to keep XP "running well" and, amazingly, other platforms don't need to do this. Frankly, I've got better things to do than tinkering with my computer's OS.

Finally, "Fanboi" is not a word and you are not the sharpest stick in the woods.


By DragonMaster0 on 8/19/2008 12:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you consider it a badge of honor that you know how to defrag your hard drive and disable unused services?

The automatically-enabled defrag on idle features saves you from defragging while the computer is doing nothing. But, if you have fun believing online guides telling you to disable many services, you'll lose that feature, along with prefetching, which makes the computer run way faster (but the boot time is 4 seconds longer) The only services you should ever disable are Remote Registry (if you don't use Wi-Fi), Auto Wireless config (if you don't use Wi-Fi), and a few Smart Card-related services. Disabling other services will either cause errors in the logs (due to timeouts, which slow down the system) or disable some features.

quote:
We're all well aware that Windows, typically, needs to be reinstalled about once per year if you use it a lot because XP and older, at least, slows down.
Maybe in the Windows 98 era, but I haven't reinstalled XP on any of my systems for at least 4 years, except when my OSes started to get corrupted by all the registry cleaners, disabled services and tweaks supposed to make the system faster. Basically, to get XP to perform well, do just like you would with other OSes, DON'T TWEAK IT! You'll get performance losses in the long term.

On OS X, there are many 3rd party utilities to remove all the language files you don't need, fix permissions, execute maintenance scripts, clearing cache, which all make the system run much faster (Monolingual and OnyX, for example).

I don't see what's so different from running CCleaner and a registry defragger on Windows, which is basically all you need to keep XP running fast.

You waste way more time doing maintenance on OS X, as manually installing all the heavy 10MB+ update files and running 3rd party maintenance utilities (which take minutes to finish their tasks) is very long. XP automatically updates with a few <2mb updates on idle, and CCleaner only takes seconds to execute after the very first time you install and run it.


By kelmon on 8/19/2008 12:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you know what I mean. The absolute arrogance of some people who tell you that "you don't know how to use a computer" just gets my back up. It's been about 5-years now since I've been a Windows user so I've forgotten quite a lot of the specifics. Needless to say, however, I stayed well clear of applications that claimed to speed up my PC. Still, I seem to recall that XP on its release needed a bit of tweaking but was certainly improved by SP2.

With respect to OS X maintenance, there's a reasonable number of 3rd party utilities but they've not been needed since Tiger unless you are doing troubleshooting. The infamous UNIX maintenance scripts, for example, that are scheduled to run during the night are run the next time you start the computer if the Mac was sleeping at the scheduled time. The permissions thing is a bit of old Mac voodoo, much like the old "clear you cookies and cache" for any browser issues - it's almost never needed. I've yet to find a utility that makes the OS run faster and anyone clearing their cache in the expectation that it will make things run faster needs a smack around the head.


By DragonMaster0 on 8/18/2008 1:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
No one should have worries about a dual-core 1.4GHz CPU with a recent GPU being too slow for normal tasks.

My IBM ThinkPad T22 (P3-M 900MHz, 256MB RAM, SavageIX GPU, Windows XP) has no problems running Office 2007, rendering webpages, multitasking, etc. And since I installed Adobe Reader 9 and Flash 10 beta, PDFs are rendered quite fast and YouTube and pages with Flash content don't lag anymore. (Adobe barely starts to use hardware rendering)

Getting the fastest 2.5" IDE drive I could and setting 16-bit colors helped a lot, but only the slow Flash and PDF rendering remained a problem until recently.

The GPU and RAM size seem like the limiting factor on my laptop, as I rarely see the 900MHz CPU hitting 100% use.

Oh, and the cursor never lags on that machine. ;-)

I don't believe the X301 will be slow under Vista if you take the time to disable a couple of CPU/GPU cycle wasting features.


By Fnoob on 8/18/2008 9:36:14 AM , Rating: 2
What would truly be impressive is, in addition to the (potentially) outstanding battery life on the road - that speedstep magically cranks up an extra set of cores and runs at 3Ghz when plugged in. Otherwise, for my business needs, this thing is just a HQ 'netbook' that costs ~$2500. Kinda makes the uber fu-fu Airbook seem suddenly cheap.


By pauldovi on 8/18/2008 12:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
The Air is cheap compared to the X300 / X301. The Thinkpad offers replaceable / removable / upgradable battery, DVD Burner or additional battery, 3 USB ports, LAN, WiMax, GPS, high quality SSD (single cell), Display port, a high resolution LED screen, and a TMP. The Air offers none of these....


By Pirks on 8/18/2008 3:17:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Air is cheap compared to the X300 / X301
Say goodbye to the "Macs are too expensive" urban legend that is so much cherished by some clueless DT readers :P


By pauldovi on 8/18/2008 3:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
The difference is, you can go really expensive with Lenovo (and other PC notebooks) with stuff like the X300, X200, W500, and W700. Or you can tone it down to meet your needs to more affordable stuff that goes way cheaper than the Macs.

So at the end of the day, the Macs are too expensive.


By Pirks on 8/18/2008 3:43:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Macs are too expensive
Still sounds incorrect. Here's the Reality Checked (TM) version: Macs are not as configurable as PCs.


By kelmon on 8/18/2008 4:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, there's no denying that the MacBook Air is full of compromises and that, if you want to maximise features, the X301 does the business. That said, if you aren't concerned by the compromises then the cheaper price and access to the Mac platform may be attractive.

I'm still of the opinion that if Apple wants to make a serious business laptop then they ought to make a proper docking station...


Good stuff
By batatadoida on 8/18/2008 5:27:34 AM , Rating: 2
I have worked with a Lenovo thinkpad (T-60) and I should say it's a remarkable machine for your average business use. Reliable, compact, light, discreet. It is a bit ugly but it works flawless (in my experience). I expect this new model to be a step forward in these features. For work purposes I would always chose one of these over the mac.




RE: Good stuff
By bety on 8/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: Good stuff
By Indianapolis on 8/18/2008 9:22:22 AM , Rating: 1
If you were trying to be clever, then I think you failed miserably.


RE: Good stuff
By kelmon on 8/18/2008 7:42:53 AM , Rating: 2
I dunno. The specifications for the X301 look good with the exception of the processor which still seems a bit gutless to me. I'm not expecting a PC like this to be used for gaming or "high-end" stuff but even for general office computing that processor sounds a bit slow. The MacBook Air has a faster processor and that is supposed to lack a bit so I honestly worry how this laptop will cope with the likes of Vista and Office for day-to-day work.

Anyone got any experience with Windows computing with one of these low-power laptop processors?


RE: Good stuff
By Oscarine on 8/18/2008 8:33:55 AM , Rating: 3
I've been running Vista more than acceptably (No Aero however) on a Sony TX with a 1.1ghz Pentium M, I've also run Vista on a 1.2ghz Via C7M without any major hiccups, the X300/301 are definatley more than enough power for what they are designed to be doing.


RE: Good stuff
By kelmon on 8/18/2008 9:09:01 AM , Rating: 2
Silly question but do you notice a difference (not including the Aero interface) between running Vista and associated applications on these slower processors when compared to running them on a "standard" laptop (2GHz+ Core 2 Duo)? The reason why I ask is that I'm currently running a 2.33GHz C2D system so dropping over 900MHz sounds (or about 40%) like a big loss in performance.


RE: Good stuff
By prenox on 8/18/2008 9:22:52 AM , Rating: 2
You should be able to lower your processor multiplier with Speed Step and find out how much performance loss for yourself.


RE: Good stuff
By Chadder007 on 8/18/2008 10:37:45 AM , Rating: 2
I just bought a Lenovo R61i with a 2.4ghz Core 2 and 3 gigs of RAM in it but Vista seems sluggish. All latest updates applied along with latest drivers from Lenovo.


RE: Good stuff
By nitrous9200 on 8/18/2008 9:48:22 AM , Rating: 3
Vista basic runs very well on an Atom 230, so anything dual-core should have no problem.


RE: Good stuff
By Gravemind123 on 8/18/2008 12:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
As far as the processor is concerned, my mom has a tablet-pc with a 1.2GHz Merom Core2Duo that performs great for office work and even basic audio/video/photo editing, which she does for her job as a technology teacher. If you are looking for an ultra-portable for basic daily tasks, then the processor in this should perform admirably.


Displayport
By Cullinaire on 8/18/2008 6:01:06 AM , Rating: 2
Finally, modern video outputs on laptops! As long as it's possible to convert it back to safe-old VGA, I don't see why laptops shouldn't have the latest standards! (Looks like DVI may be skipped over by the majority of makers)




RE: Displayport
By Penti on 8/18/2008 8:40:38 AM , Rating: 2
Normally you get DVI-D in the docking station. That is true for Thinkpads too. So it shouldn't deter business users.


RE: Displayport
By Fnoob on 8/18/2008 9:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
The DisplayPort output on this thing confuzes me. Why do I need it again? It supports resolutions up to ~2500x1500 - super - but will the lowly integrated graphics built into this thing support that at any decent refresh rate?


RE: Displayport
By pauldovi on 8/18/2008 11:13:55 AM , Rating: 2
Display Port is smaller than a VGA port or DVI port. That is good enough reason in its own to put it on the X301.


RE: Displayport
By jtesoro on 8/18/2008 11:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
Do LCD projectors sold over the last few years support anything other than the good old VGA port? Every time I make a presentation, that's always what was in use and I never noticed any of the newer ports (though I haven't actually looked for them).


RE: Displayport
By kelmon on 8/19/2008 3:17:09 AM , Rating: 2
I presume you can get an adaptor that converts DisplayPort to VGA. My day-to-day laptop only has DVI so I face the same issue and therefore my DVI-to-VGA adaptor gets used quite a lot in the office. This is quite annoying so I hope that DisplayPort takes off as a standard and we can all move on from VGA. Right now it feels like we're in a Catch-22 situation that means we're stuck with VGA...


RE: Displayport
By Cullinaire on 8/20/2008 11:53:27 AM , Rating: 2
It's not just being able to support higher res/refresh, it's the fact that it's a digital port and therefore you're more likely to get a good picture if you use it. (let's forget about those early monitors that were crap whether you used DVI or not)

And yes, being small helps too. The form factor is more suited to laptops since it's more conducive to frequent unpluggings.


LOL
By iFX on 8/18/2008 2:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When Apple launched its MacBook Air 13.3” ultra-portable notebook earlier this year, it took the computing world by storm.


HAHAHAHAH. Thanks, I needed a laugh.




RE: LOL
By pauldovi on 8/18/2008 2:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. The Mac Book Air isn't even selling, which is obvious by the repeated uncharacteristic price cuts. I have yet to see one person with one and I go to a university...


RE: LOL
By Pirks on 8/18/2008 3:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
repeated uncharacteristic price cuts
Stop smoking that sh1t, buddy. Its price started from $1799 when it was introduced, and today the starting price is the same.

Your ignorance of the "repeated uncharacteristic" SSD price cuts looks pretty funny too ;) You probably don't even know what SSD is, must be posting to wrong forum, eh? :))


RE: LOL
By kelmon on 8/19/2008 3:26:33 AM , Rating: 2
It's hard to say what sort of sales figures the MacBook Air is posting but I have to agree that I don't expect it to be much. The MBA is full of compromises and I honestly don't think that there is a big enough market where those compromises are acceptable. Basically, unless you absolutely need the lightest Mac then you'd be better off buying the standard MacBook that has more "standard" features and a smaller price.

This said, I don't think a university would be the most likely place to see one. If I had to pick a likely customer for the Air, I'd suggest journalists that want/need to travel light.

At the end of the day, even Apple customers where surprised by the MBA. We were expecting a replacement for the 12" PowerBook G4 and the MBA certainly wasn't that. I'm honestly not sure what Apple was thinking about when they came up with what must have been known to be an extra niche product.


RE: LOL
By robinthakur on 8/19/2008 6:04:59 AM , Rating: 2
I think from the other posts you've put out here, you aren't the biggest Apple fan, and your opinion is hardly unbiased here. I work for an investment bank, and several managing directors insisted on a MBA when it came out. I've seen a few people with them here in the city, though I agree that the target market is a niche one. i.e. no cost constraints and wants the best looking, most lightweight laptop running Leopard. I doubt the university market is a big one for Apple on these, but the point i'm making is don't judge based solely on your own experience, and the sales figures for the MBA are not widely released I believe, so we have no way of knowing.

Whilst I personally wouldn't buy one unless I won the lottery, they are truly gorgeous machines up close, really build very well and more reminiscent of the Macbook Pro than the cheapo Macbooks.


Not an Apple zealot but...
By gochichi on 8/18/2008 3:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
I am amazed by how many people argue that these are SO much better than the MB Air. Simply not the case.

For one, $1700 is more than enough... it's too much ALREADY... any more than that for these so called ultra portables is just ridiculous. Sometimes it's just time to ask, do I really need that? Do you REALLY need a DVD player on a 3 lbs package? Have you noticed that you can get one for under $200 at Walmart?

The most surprising thing is that the MB Air has a much faster processor.

I'd like to conclude by saying that I'm not a huge Apple fan, personally, I'd buy an ThinkPad SL300 that weighs in at slightly under 5 lbs and at right around $1k.

Whenever the PC manufacturers "beat" Apple they end up offering a more expensive option to the actual Mac. It's a problem, a really big problem for me. I want Mac-like features but on a PC that costs LESS than a Mac, and not more.

LED screens are taking FOREVER to get adopted into the manufacturers lineups. I MUST have an LED screen on my next laptop, I care about size and weight too... but I also care about money. It's just not cool to spend $2k+ on something that you want to actually use with confidence and throw around.

What's the use on spending more money on something that you have to baby around b/c it's so expensive?

I can't wait for the SL300 to be released, I hope the reviews are good too... LED screen, 2.26Ghz (or higher), 4GB RAM, etc. etc. for around $1000.00 is precisely what I'm looking for. At least it's finally in the pipeline. A regular MacBook with an LED screen would do the trick as well.

LED screens make regular screens look extremely dim. If I could put an LED screen on my old laptop I would... it's really the only MUST-HAVE for me.




RE: Not an Apple zealot but...
By Pirks on 8/18/2008 3:37:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whenever the PC manufacturers "beat" Apple they end up offering a more expensive option to the actual Mac
Be careful, saying such blasphemous things on DT forums leads to serious downrating quickly. Just watch my rating here as an example.


RE: Not an Apple zealot but...
By pauldovi on 8/18/2008 3:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
The X300 can be had, right now, for $1950. That figure includes the 64GB SSD but doesn't come with a DVD drive (just a travel bezel in the place of the drive). You can take it down another 5-10% using either the Visa discount or Student discount, and another 10% using their USXSUMMERHEAT promo code. Furthermore, you can get 20% cash back on the laptop from Microsoft Live Cash Back.

The X300 / X301 is a practice ultra mobile laptop where the Air isn't. It is quite durable, in fact I would like you to take a look at this commercial where they beat the X300 up pretty good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvamUnEklHU


RE: Not an Apple zealot but...
By pauldovi on 8/18/2008 3:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
Article Needs a Little Help
By pauldovi on 8/18/2008 12:52:39 PM , Rating: 5
The article doesn't really mention that this is the Montevina refresh of the X300. It features:

* Core 2 Duo U9400 (14% increase in clock speed, 41% decrease in TDP)
* DDR3 memory (37% increase in memory bandwidth, 17% decrease in power consumption)
* GM45 + X4500HD IGP (6% increase in clock speed, 20% increase in shader count, 11% reduction in power consumption)
* Wifi 5300 3x3 (Supports 3 up / down link simultaneously, supports A/G/N and WiMax)

All good news, not all mentioned.




RE: Article Needs a Little Help
By kelmon on 8/19/2008 3:28:30 AM , Rating: 2
Drat, if I hadn't already commented on the article then I'd have rated you +1. More performance for less power consumption is always nice.


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki