I received my X300 almost a week ago on Friday. It was ordered directly from Lenovo's site with the following options: DVD-RW, 3GB RAM, WinXP

My laptop for the last couple of years has been a Sony TX (11.1" 1366x768, 1GB RAM, DVD-RW, WinXP), so that serves as my primary point of comparison, although I frequently work on all sorts of other laptops.

These are just my notes on "stand-out" positives and negatives compared to the TX and/or most other ultraportable laptops currently available.

Positives:

* Great screen size and resolution
* Solid construction
* Good stereo speakers - don't sound tinny
* Great connectivity options (WWAN, 802.11a, WUSB)
* Great keyboard feel
* Attractively clean design

Negatives:

* Below best-of-breed screen contrast
* Limited screen viewing angle
* Screen shimmering
* Trackpad tapping inconsistent (sometimes a very light touch unintentionally registers a tap, sometimes I have to tap two or three times before its registered; driver settings don't seem to improve this)
* Distractingly unattractive "Think" application icons
* Should be smaller given border around screen
* No CPU options
* No storage options
* No SD reader
* No Cardbus expansion
* Heavier than advertised [going off of 2.9 pound figure used in early third-party reports, which must have not included the weight of the optical drive - Lenovo's site currently says 3.1 pounds, which is accurate]


Overall, the screen was my primary motivation for upgrading from my TX, and it may also be my primary motivation for selling the X300 and waiting for an improved model to come along.

I hope someone finds this helpful!

i'd like to hear more detail about the screen quality or possible lack thereof.   i haven't used one yet and this is a big selling point to me.

regarding the weight, did you actually measure it with a calibrated scale or are you just going by "seat of the pants" measurements?

Again, this is in comparison to my Sony TX, which I've stared at for many hours the last couple of years. Blacks on the X300 are washed-out and colors don't have the punch they do on the TX. The vertical viewing angle is definitely narrower on the X300: there's an obvious "sweet spot" you have to stay in to get the best image.

I don't think the X300's screen is bad - it just doesn't match up to Sony's above-average screens. I expect a pretty awesome screen for more than $2,600, though.

The shimmering is a problem. It's only obvious on certain colors, but it's definitely there. I first noticed it in a particular image on a web page, and I've since found a specific color that shows-off the issue easily: an RGB value of 103,103,93.

It may be a driver issue, although I played with all the options in the Intel control panel, and nothing has affected the shimmering.

For the record, I haven't installed any additional software on this machine since I received it. I have applied all current Windows/Office/Lenovo updates, however.


I placed it on a scale I use for mailing small packages. I wouldn't use it for biomolecular experiments, but it's accurate enough for this purpose. It reads 3 pounds, 2.7 ounces with the 3-cell battery and DVD drive. My personal definition of an "ultraportable" laptop is one that weighs no more than 3 pounds including a standard battery and optical drive.

I amended my notes to read "below best-of-breed screen contrast" instead of "poor screen contrast", as I think "poor" may be too harsh. I'm personally displeased with the contrast, but I doubt most people would even notice.

[quote="omf"][/quote]

Tucson, eh? I lived in the Golf Links/Pantano area for a number of years. I miss the summer storms, but not much else about the place.

The advertised weight is 3.13 lbs for a unit with 3-cell battery and DVD drive. 3 pounds 2.7 ounces equals 3.17 lbs, and if you remove one stick of RAM, it will become 3.15 lbs. So I don't think Lenovo lied about the weight.

"Ultraportable" is usually defined as laptops lighter than 4 lbs. If we use your definition, most of the X-series Thinkpads released to date aren't ultraportable because most of them exceed 3 lbs.

i agree that the price-to-screen-performance ratio should be better.   as long as it's no worse than my T61p or X61 displays then i'll be happy.

your 3.17 lb measurement is extremely close to the advertised 3.13 lb for that config.   the difference could be in something as minor as wireless cards or scale accuracy.   my thinkpad s30 is roughly 3.25 lbs but feels extremely lightweight due to the smaller footprint.   the X300 might feel heavier due to the larger footprint.   either way, both of them are lighter than my X61 with an 8c battery at 3.6 lbs -- which admittedly does feel a bit heavy for such a small notebook but it doesn't bother me.

thanks for the feedback.   when i get mine i'll be sure to try your RGB value to see if mine shimmers, too.

Unfortunately, the summer storms aren't what they used to be in years past.

Thanks for the correction - I'd understood the weight to be 2.75 pounds, but I can certainly believe that I either misread or misremembered that figure.

And you're right, most X-series laptops aren't ultraportables by my definition.

Please do - I'm very curious to know if this is just a fault in my machine or more widespread.

Amended my negative regarding the weight - thanks for the correction.

I beg to differ.

My X41 X series ultraportable laptop is just under 3lbs with the slim battery and is very much an ultra-portable. Maybe not the fastest ultra-portable out there, but definitely a ground-breaking machine that defined the ultra-portable market in its time with its near full-size keyboard and 12.1" screen.

I also consider the X60s also to be the very definition of ultra-portable, albeit a bit heavier/thicker at just over 3 lbs.

So for the next generation X300 Thinkpad to come along, finally add a second spindle (DVD-RW) and maintain a weight and size that is clearly in the ultra-portable category is truly miraculous.

I challenge anyone to be able to tell he difference between carrying 2.93 Lbs. vs. carrying 3.13 Lbs. The difference so negligible that it should be considered irrelevant.

Yep, the viewing angle isn't great, but I haven't had any hint of a screen shimmer on my x300.

I said "most", which isn't the same as "all". All configurations of the X20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 41 tablet, 60, 60 tablet, 61 and 61 tablet weigh over 3 lbs. With 8-cell batteries, the X40, 41, 60s and 61s are also over 3 lbs. The X40, 41, 60s and 61s weigh under 3 lbs only when 4-cell batteries are used. Clearly, only a minority of these X-series thinkpads are under 3 lbs.



With the Ultralight LCD and the slimline battery, the X60s weighs 2.6 to 2.7 lbs. I owned one that had a non-UL screen, and it weighed 2.89 lbs, still less than 3 lbs.

No need to beg. Everyone's definitions on these terms are a bit different. That's why I made it a point to say "MY definition" in my initial post.

After having put the X300 into hibernation while I spoke with Lenovo support, I'm now not seeing the shimmering. I'm going to keep experimenting to see what's triggering it, but it'd definitely not happening all the time.

The support tech thought it was a loose LCD connector, but that seems unlikely on such a solid machine.

Amended with a brief description of my trackpad problems.

A couple of nitpicks I won't add to the "review":

* What's the Thinkpad Active Protection System doing on a machine that doesn't have an HDD option?
* It seems the EasyEject Utility can't actually eject the optical disc. (The drive is capable of ejecting on it's own - it did so during my build of the recovery media set.)

active protection is built in for future use.   i don't see this being an SSD-only machine.

easyeject also works on external devices like USB HDDs so it does have some utility even though the optical drive can't be as quickly ejected as on other models.

That's what I was afraid of. If the screen is even worse than Vaio TZ series (over 500:1 contrast ratio) or MacBook Air (over 700:1 contrast ratio) it is another loss of Lenovo over competition. I expect something horrible under 200:1 with no black color at all, just different levels of white and gray colors

It should be sounded loud. Every new ThinkPad = just another crappy screen

My point on that one is that it SHOULD allow you to eject the disc, as the drive clearly has the ability to do so.

This is my first Thinkpad, so I can't compare it to previous models.

It's to bad there aren't any other laptops out there using a high resolution (1440x900) 13.3" screen. I'd be pretty happy with a 1440x900 12.1" screen, too!

the drive can be removed.   watch this video: http://lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/?p=139

So is the screen really that bad? I've had a T4x before and know what you're talking about. I thought the LED backlight would improve things. I may just buy the Sony SZ780 for the better screen, but it's a little heavier and the keyboard sucks


hmm, decisions.

I'm with OMF, likely because I've similarly chased the lowest-weight laptop for years, starting with the IBM 500 up to my current Sony TZ. I'd say that under 4lbs is a subnotebook, while under 3lbs is an ultraportable.

There's no recognized standard, so we're each left to make up our own definitions, which we can debate endlessly. I like my cut-off points firm and clearly defined, so I tend to use 1lb increments. (Under 2lbs - UMPC, btw).

Any arguments based on "you couldn't tell the difference between 2.9lbs and 3.1" are non-starter, and we have to start somewhere. If you can't agree that there should be a cut-off point, there's no point in discussing it, or in differentiating at all; politely step outside.

I agree, but IBM/Lenovo has been using 4 lb as the cutoff for "ultraportable", which I suspect started with the Thinkpad 570. CNet also uses 4 lb.



I didn't make the statement "you couldn't tell the difference between 2.9lbs and 3.1", shfawaz did. In fact, if you had been on this forum frequent enough, you'd know that I am extremely picky about weight. To me, every 0.01 lb matters, and that's why I weigh every laptop I've owned -- see my signature. I always use travel bezels when traveling, and for laptops that I carry around, I prefer to have only one stick of RAM and leave the other slot empty, and the smallest battery and AC adapter possible.

I didn't say you made that statement, I was simply addressing it - sorry for the confusion.

Have you been on the forum long enough to know I'm pickier about weight than you? Check our relative join dates. (Edit - I see you noticed that and amended your post.)

I actually knew about that and meant to type "frequent" instead of "long". That word was changed quickly but unfortunately you responded even faster.

I don't think you're pickier than I about weight - just compare our signatures. I have owned around 50 laptops and weighed each of them on a very accurate scientific balance. I don't believe anyone here is more compulsive than I.

BTW, ever since I got a Palm Centro PDA/smartphone, I stopped carrying around laptops unless that's absolutely necessary. To me, even the lightest UMPC is too heavy and inconvenient to lug around.

No offense, but I'd classify that more as fussy than picky. I'd say I'm pickier because I eliminate some choices on weight alone, while you've currently got a model weighing almost 8lbs. That might be the lightest of a selection of behemoths, but I'd never pick something that big at all.

As for the 4lb limit, what do Lenovo and Cnet consider a subnotebook, if 4lbs is ultraportable, if you happen to know? How can any rational system lump a Sony Picturebook (2.2lbs) and an IBM T43 with the optical drive removed (~ 3.9lb, iirc) in the same category?

Sigh, our posts crossed again so you didn't see the paragraph that I added to my previous post. I am both fussy and picky. These days, the only things I find light enough to carry around on a regular basis are my Palm Centro (which gets unlimited access to the internet), Dell Axim X51v, and HP Jornada 720. All of these fit in a pants pocket, which is great because I hate to carry bags. When I am required to carry a laptop, I use my HP nc2400 with the optical drive taken out to reduce the weight to 2.81 lbs, but that happens only several times a year. All the other laptops listed in my signature are desktop replacement units that never leave my desk.

In case you're interested, here's the history of my search for the lightest laptop that I could afford:

Thinkpad 600E (5.29 lb)
Dell Inspiron 700m (4.14 lb)
Thinkpad 240 (2.96 lb)
Thinkpad X40 (2.76 lb)
Toshiba Portege R100 (2.38 lb)

Then, sometime in 2006, I started getting picky about display resolution as well and decided I could no longer tolerate 1024x768. That's why the lightest laptop that I currently own, the HP nc2400 is actually heavier than the 2.38-lb Portege R100. This HP is the only sub-3lb (without the optical drive) laptop with resolution higher than 1024x768 that I can afford.

But again, even this HP is too heavy, so most of the time, I just carry my Palm Centro.



I could be wrong but I don't think IBM/Lenovo or Cnet distinguish between "subnotebook" and "ultraportable". I personally define "subnotebook" based on size rather than weight. For me, "ultraportable" is anything between 2 and 4 lbs, whereas "subnotebook" is any laptop that's 10.4" for 4:3 or 11.1" widescreen, or smaller. So, the Thinkpad 240, which weighs ~2.95, is both a subnotebook and an ultraportable.

I see where you're coming from in your definitions, but I disagree. To me, two pounds if a pretty large fricking range to lump everything in with - we're entering an age where even full-size notebooks can squeak into the subnotebook range.

I'm not unaware of the weaknesses of the weight-based system, though. By those standards, a 3-cell X300 is an ulraportable, while a 6-cell X300 isn't.