X200 best seller.

I bought an X200 through Amazon, the detailed specs weren't mentioned and I assumed it's the best seller model. Any idea on detailed specs?

I it's the P8600, 2GB ram, 160GB HDD. But what's the operating system? What's the HDD speed and is it a single 2GB stick or 2 x 1GB?

 

Well there is more than one best seller. But are you talking about the base model that is about $1200? I believe it is XP preinstalled with a Vista Business license (which you can upgrade yourself). The HD is 5400 I believe and it is 2x1gig. Also 4cell battery and intel wifi 5100.

 

I'm good with all the above but would be extra happy if it turned out to be XP/Vista license. I love XP!

 

Which one did you buy a see a few listed on Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/X200-12-1-Wxg...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1220742519&sr=8-1

is

7454-2GU P8600 2.40 2GB 12.1" WXGA 160GB 5400 ✣ Intel 510028 Finger 4 XP Pro


http://www.amazon.com/X200-12-1-Wxg...6?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1220742519&sr=8-6

is

7454-2HU P8600 2.40 2GB 12.1" WXGA 160GB 5400 DVD±RW UltraBase ✣ Intel 5100 Finger 6 XP Pro



These are pretty good prices but I don't know if I want XP and I don't want a 5400rpm drive.

 

I have the above machine the model is 7454-2GU.

XP is pre-installed and you can create XP recovery CD's using an external drive.Also Vista Business is not just a COA but actually supplied as 3 recovery CD's so if you wish to change from XP to Vista you can.

I currently am running Vista and have XP as recovery CD's.

I would do a Google search using ThinkPad 7454-2GU as your search (not just X200) you will find prices slightly lower than $1181.

Overall a reasonable machine. Very light and exceptionally well made.
However the screen is not up to the standard. It’s not an LED just standard backlit and yet has poor off axis contrast (both vertical and horizontal).
I also own an ASUS W2P (OK granted it has a glossy 17" 1680 x 1050 screen) and the easiest way to describe the two screens is one is a photograph the other a picture postcard.
The resolution at 1200 x 800 is totally suited to the size of screen but the image changes contrast with only slight screen movements (backwards / forwards).

I am also not totally convinced by the time it takes to resume from sleep or hibernation. I will be reformatting the unit to see if this makes any difference (for some reason it created an S and Q hard drive in addition to the normal C drive (after using the Vista recovery CD’s). One is around 1.75GB while the other is around 20GB.

If size, weight, build quality and a high quality keyboard are your main focus then it’s a good machine (it is also much smaller than you might imagine).
However I will not be using it for any Photoshop work simply because I can't trust the accuracy of the image I am shown.

 

I completely agree. I love the machine but the screen is the real downside. I, too, will not be touching any photoediting programs on here. Even just viewing pictures is horrible. But for office productivity and youtube it is fine. I will probably spend half my time on my laptop in the living room and the other half on my workstation. Great for the on the go, though!

 

Ughh … I was just about to pull the trigger on the X200. I am a previous X6xs owner and one of the reasons for choosing it was the Ultralight screen (180 nits) which was better than the screen on the normal voltage model X6x models (150 nits).

With the X200 I believed that I could get an ultraportable Thinkpad with full processing power and a screen of at least average quality. However, your comments have made me have second thoughts.

Can you compare the X200 screen quality to the regular and Ultralight screens on the previous ultraportable models?

If the X200 is at least on par with the Ultralight (quality wise) I will pull the trigger on it. If it is not, I will probably pass.

 

On Andrew's review of the X200 you can find them side by side. The X200 looks a lot brighter than the X61s. I think the problem isn't with brightness, but with vertical angle viewing. Ahh, I miss flexview on the good old T42s!

 

I had hard time viewing/reading documents when I set the brightness to low. To add to that, screen is only 12.1" big.

 

I do not have a x61 around to test...but brightness is not the problem as mentioned. It is the viewing angle and quality. The screen is certainly usable for office work, but it is abit annoying if you mind adjust the screen repeatedly (the sweet spot is VERY small). I can move my body about .5ft and notice a contrast difference start if that helps.

 

It is always difficult to form an opinion on screen quality (brightness) based on a photography, as variations in exposure time and ambient lightning can produce substantially different looking pictures.

The Thinkpad in the picture is an X61 with a screen that is rated at 150 nits. I see that the X200 (rated at 200 nits) is somewhat brighter than the X61. However, the X300 (rated at 300 nits) in the picture does not seem to be brighter than the X200 and is more in line with the X61.

This makes me suspect that the brightness was not maxed on all notebooks which would have been the most logical way if the intention was to compare screen brightness as well.

I look forward to your comments on the screen once you have received your X200.

 

Thanks. Have you owned/worked with a Thinkpad previously? If so, which model and how did the screen compare to the X200?

 

Sorry, I did not explicate that I have used an x61 before. I would argue that the x200 IS brighter, but it might have more viewing angle issues (Sorry I do not recall about the angles on the x61 because it was stationary when I used it).

 

"Viewing pictures is horrible"??? You have to have a defective screen jaredy in my opinion.. It isn't as bad as you are making it out to be in the one I saw.. The X200 is 200 nits not 180 as mentioned above..