Your Lenovo notebook wishlist

Not long after buying my current machine (in sig), I started wondering what would compel me to upgrade to the next one. So, I've been keeping a list of characteristics I'll be looking for in my next machine. Anyone else think this way, and care to participate? Here are mine, in no particular order:

---1. Storage: Absolutely must have two bays, one of them being standard 9.5mm height (abolish the 7mm foolishness). Really loving mSATA as the OS drive.
---2. Dimensions/weight: Less than my current machine, so: < 3.25lb, and < 8.3"x12.3"0.85". I will tolerate as thick as 1", in order to maintain the 9.5mm drive height capability. This was the lightest/smallest machine that met my requirements at the time, but there are moments I wish it was lighter -- like when I have to walk the length of my university building with it under my arm (I'm 31 and rather fit, but it's sometimes annoying to carry).
---3. Screen: I don't personally care whether or not it has IPS, but it must be antiglare, and higher resolution. I would almost kill to have 1600x900 on this screen size. I know plenty of people would whine about needing to squint at that on a 12.5" screen, but hey, at least make it an option. Many smartphones today have resolutions at or above 800x480, and that's on a ~4" screen. 1366*768 is a netbook-grade spec. Offer better alternatives for >11" screens. I would have gleefully paid an extra $150 (possibly more) to get a 1600*900 or higher-res display on this size machine.
---4. USB 3.0, and possibly Thunderbolt. For fast transfers, I can get by with GbE and eSATA, but they are for rather specific functions. Would be nice to have more versatility.
---5. Quad-core Intel with low power draw, better integrated graphics, and can run perfectly fine with a small power adapter. Ability to run completely silent when in light use (I adore this trait of my current machine).
---6. Two RAM slots, and/or cheap 8GB sticks.
---7. More than 8 hours of real-world light/moderate-use battery life from a battery that doesn't ruin the visual continuity of the notebook. Also, possibility to use a slice battery to bring it above 15hrs real-world use.
---8. Ability to use a dock that can support two 2560x1600 displays via DisplayPort, GbE, several USB 3.0 ports, etc. Here's an idea... Build a PCIe slot into the dock for the purposes of running a very decent video card through Thunderbolt. Let the card be a customer-replaceable unit (I haven't patented this idea yet, don't worry...).

I know that several of these points would have been at least partially addressed by moving into classic Thinkpad territory, and others will come along with Ivy Bridge (or a close descendant). That said, I mostly fear for the prospects of numbers 1 and 3. It would be dreadful to see Lenovo get carried away on this 7mm path, as well as not capitalizing on being able to present higher-density resolutions. Surely plenty of people can be convinced of the added potential for productivity on such displays.

Some might see fit to comment on the disparity between my current machine, and what I've listed above. I should be clear that the above points are for what I'll be wanting to buy in the next 2-3 years -- not what I need right now. Also, I would pay more than my current machine (~$700) to have all this -- probably $1200-1500 if done right.

 

Honestly, I like the X220 just the way it is. You want a 1" machine, but want hours of battery life and a demand a 9.5" hard drive. Those don't add up. The X220 is a 1" notebook with the four-cell battery.

I'm just happy to have a good screen option. 1600x900 is just too small for most users. 125 pixel density, which is what the X220 is, is about right for most users in my experience. Lenovo is not going to cater to the extremes. There's no money there. If you saw what the X201s cost, $1,500 might be a bit low.

 

A 9.5mm drive already fits in my machine at 0.85", just not officially.

About the screen, well, no one knows how many people would want such a thing, as only one company offers anything like that (Sony SA and Z), and I'm not buying another one of their machines again. I get the impression that my opinion of them isn't unique, or even rare. So, practically speaking, there is no supply for what people like me might demand.

 

I think sales volumes could be an indicator. I'd bet the volumes for the Z or X20xs would be low compared to the X220.

 

Well if you want to play that game, I wonder what are the sales figures of the x220i vs. the standard x220... I don't see how you're adding anything constructive to the intention of this thread.

 

Something to cater to all of those requirements would be crazy expensive. x220 again as ZaZ stated, covers a good portion. Unfortunately no plans to release an x220s. Or if Lenovo made such a machine, it would be the 3-4k area.

 

1. Enough with the X220. It's not the answer to everyone's needs or wants.
2. I already mentioned that this about a machine for a few years down the line -- not today. how about stretching that imagination a little bit?
3. Clearly Sony sells enough of the Z to have put it through several refreshes. Fine, charge more for it... at least put it out there! And I'm quite sure that $3-4k is not remotely an accurate representation of such a machine in the near future.

 

I was just giving my opinion. I think the X220 vs the X220i is a little different as they are the same except for the CPU. While it's good to dream, I think a WXGA+ LCD on a 12" notebook is very unlikely for the reasons I've mentioned.

You have to understand Lenovo makes most of it's money selling to corporation, governments and education. They're a conservative lot by nature. They are most interested in cost and compatibility, not dedicated GPUs, thunderbolt, 7mm vs 9.5mm drives, or high resolution screens. The people here who want that stuff are a drop in the bucket in Lenovos sales and are over represented in the populace here. Business people aren't the ones buying the Z.

 

Fair enough... I guess ultimately what I'm looking for is an innovative notebook designer that isn't Sony or Apple... heh

 

I'd like to see X220 clone, but bumped up 13". That's something I think you're likely to a WXGA+ LCD in and the pixel density is a little more palatable. Say maybe around four pounds with the six cell battery. I'd be interested in something like that. My hope is perhaps they'll figure out how to move the IPS technology from X220 into the T series. I'd be interested in a WXGA+ T430 with IPS. I don't need a ton mobility and want a good screen, but don't want a 15" six pound notebooks either, which is why I have the X220i.

 

There's not too much more that I would want from an X220 that would make it the perfect machine for me, although some are admittedly unpractical for general consumer sale:

1.- High-Resolution Screen: a 12.5" 1600x900 or 1920x1080 panel would be amazing. For some reason, I don't have any trouble with high DPI screens, although many people do. Ideally, these screens would also be IPS, but between the two, I'd pick resolution.

2.- Larger Fan/Heatsink: a (likely larger-diameter) fan with a lower pitch when spinning would be ideal, to keep heat and noise to an absolute minimum. I'm still waiting for the day when many conventional laptops can eliminate the fan altogether.

3.- Physical Touchpad Mouse Buttons: I'd prefer a smaller touchpad with the physical buttons, like that on the X201.

4.- Return of the Previous-Generation Indicator Lights: I miss the old array of indicator lights that were present, as in my T500.

5.- Keyboard Coating: a coating similar to that on HP Elitebooks that prevent finger oils from building up and creating a "shine"

That'd just about make the X220 perfect, to me.

 

Ditto on the indicator lights.

For the nth time, tallscreens.

Also those neat bevels that used to be on the lid bezels.

 

T420 wishlist:

1. Backlit keyboard
2. Normal size cursor keys
3. HDMI Instead of DisplayPort
4. USB 3 port.

 

T420 wishlist:

1. IPS panel that cost less than $200 to upgrade from the regular laptop.
2. Trim a little in thickness.
3. A 1000m graphic card or better.
4. No huge brick for the power adapter (W series).

 

My dream Lenovo wishlist...

- 14" High Resolution IPS panel with "Premium Panel Guarantee" similar to Dell where 1 dead pixel = replacement, no questions asked. Oh and Lenovo to stop implementing EDID checks on LCD's so we can put any panel to our liking.

- Reintroduced LCD roll cage akin to T61 and stronger hinges. I do notice some flex while I poke at the lid on my T420 and the hinge is already failing that at an angle it self closes, not good. My T61 is still as solid as ever in comparison...

- Keyboard magically becomes solid backplated again.

- No WLAN whitelist as standard.

- MXM graphics slot would be nice should we want an upgrade.

- USB 3.0 Ports as standard.

- Beefier speaker systems (JBL) would be amazing.

- An official Lenovo HDD caddy that fits...

- Touchpad surface similar to T400. I don't like the rubber coating on my T420 as its too easy to ruin, I spilt some glue on it and left a permanant horrible mark on the rubber where if I did that to my T61 I could just wiped it off. As a result I had to get the whole bezel replaced.

- Most importantly - US prices for everyone!

 

I like my x220, but some things I would change......

Better speakers. The ones included dont cut it. Not so much the range of sound cause any average laptop speaker is going to be tinny and limited in range. Biggest complaint is they are very quiet and dont go near loud enough. Even my iPad speaker is night and day better.

HDMI instead of displayport. Very minor thing, but would allow easy connection to tv without having to buy yet another different adapter cable.

Better quality touchpad. I think it's more of a software issue then hardware why the touchpad acts so poor on the X220's, but never the less, an item of such importance and constant use shouldnt function so poorly on a better machine.

9.5" hdd vs 7.5.... it wouldn be a big deal for a really thin machine that thats all that will legitimately fit, but to be limited to 7.5 when it can easily fit 9.5 is an idiotic move and a waste. Even though not propper, at least we can get a 9.5 in em without much effort.

 

Actually, they could. They could squeeze a 9.5mm hard drive in there if they wanted to. They could offer a six-cell battery that just protruded from the back, etc.

The X220's screen is good enough to be competitive with the mainstream, not great. 768 vertical pixels is a bit limiting. 12.5" is nearly 13" already.

Apparently Lenovo could not possibly offer this, because they haven't yet.

 

My W520 wishlist:

-AudioEngine speakers
-HDMI port
-Mac like touchpad with buttons
-WUXGA:1920x1200 res
-backlit keyboard

 

Certainly. But that was because Lenovo aimed at another market with the X201s. If they set it at a similar price point as the X220, it surely would have been equally if not more successful.

For me, it would be a an update of the X301. It would need to have the following features:

- 13 inch screen
- 16:10 matte screen of at least 1440:900 resolution
- Original thinkpad keyboard.
- Ultrabay
- Improved battery life (with 9 cell and slice options, giving at least 8 hours with reasonable use)
- A weight of around 3 pounds
- Updated processor to the intel i series - it doesn't have to be the latest, but the current core2duo ULV is a bit too anaemic.
- USB 3 and eSATA

I'd be willing to pay 2000 bucks for this laptop.

 

You say that they like it's so easy. Do you have any idea of the engineering involved? If it were that easy, they would have done it.

But they have to make money on it too. If they sold Mercedes at the prices of Chevys, I'd probably buy one, but I don't see that happening.

 

I don't think the X201s would cost much more to manufacture if they were produced en masse like the X220.

 

Perhaps so, not that I agree, but you've got to find people to buy them. The X200s and X201s never sold anywhere near the numbers of the X200 and X201.

 

For my T420s:

1. Better screen (IPS?) and preferably 16:10
2. Backlit keyboard
3. USB / eSATA combo port (I've got USB 3 but since it isn't bootable, the cable for the HDD is as thick and heavy as a mains power cable and USB 3.0 uses extra power if anything is plugged in, then it isn't a very usable feature)
4. More USB ports where they are accessible (on the back isn't very clever - I discovered that while a USB plug fits into a network port, it doesn't work very well!)
5. A fan that doesn't struggle at full CPU load
6. And the rest of the indicator lights (there's room for them)

John

 

I want NB with X220 size but larger display. There's a lot of wasted space around X220 display. Older lenovo notebooks are much better in this regard.

 

... because they were more expensive.

 

Precisely... The X201s is pretty much the same laptop as X220 minus the ips screen and better battery life, plus the higher resolution 16:10 screen and better trackpad. There's no reason why someone wouldn't buy the X200s/X201s if they were sold at a similar price.

Maybe also better battery power, perhaps with a slice option?

 

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? You seem to be in denial about what other people want for themselves, what they've upgraded to their machines (9.5mm drives in X220 and e220s), and oblivious to what other manufacturers are capable of, either now or might be capable of in the future. You were right earlier when you basically said that Lenovo doesn't care. You should have started and ended with that.

 

For me the bay battery option in the T420s is working fine. It adds a little to the weight but not the size. Power Manager is predicting 10 hours and 8 hours is definitely feasible. if that is not enough, I've got another bay battery somewhere. However, if Lenovo can increase the capacity of the main battery without adding to size and weight, then that's fine.

John

 

John, have they fixed the problem where the bay battery always drains to zero before starting on the main battery? If not, that's something I'd add to the list of desired enhancements, especially because it could be fixed in software/firmware.

Exactly-- denial. It's good to like one's chosen and bought product, but not to the point of blindness. I've got a couple of people trying to explain to me in another thread why Lenovo just couldn't offer 16:10 screens.

 

No. That still happens but, so far, it doesn't seem to be hurting the bay battery. I wonder if 0% charge on the bay battery is set a little above zero. However, this bay battery minimum depletion ought to be something one can select in Power Manager's battery maintenance so I would rank it as a software problem and not something that needs to be changed in hardware.

John

 

Well, to be fair, I think that's a different case. We'll see for sure if Apple switches entirely to 16:9 screens in its MBPs with the next redesign, but at this point, I think it's safe to say that no manufacturer going forward will have a good chance at getting laptop-sized 16:10 displays...

Not sure about that... if it were purely a software fix, you'd think Lenovo would have added that feature some time in the last couple generations. Perhaps the UltraBay battery lacks the chips that allow threshold-setting in the first place?

A bit off-topic, but just for curiosity's sake: do the new Tx20, X220, and X1 slice batteries support charge thresholds?

 

Couldn't the OS just query the battery every so often for its state, and stop drawing from it after a certain point?

It's so obviously easy I didn't waste time thinking further about it. It's not like an X220 is a Macbook Air. In any event it looks like shaving off .25mm of tabs lets 9.5mm drives slide into the X220 just fine:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/lenovo-ibm/583998-9-5mm-hdd-t420s-x1-x220.html

 

It's the BIOS, not the OS, that would do this monitoring, indeed it does it already to know when to switch to the main battery when the bay battery reaches 0%. There's no need for any new hardware: The capability to monitor the charge status of the batteries already exists.

John

 

Heres my wish list for 11.6-12.5" Thinkpad:
1)all metal anodized build, just like Elitebooks are while maintaining current or even lighter Thinkpads weight, realy dont like how rubber wears off and scratches appear on Thinkpads
2)dedicated graphics chip, sure, DIY solutions are possibility, but why not something stronger than current Intel HD3000?
3)thin bezel screen, aka LG's Shuriken, so gone are huge bezels, dont care, dont like, dont want. I want my 12.5" screen in laptop with smaller footprint. The same applies to all sizes of laptops, not just ultraportables with sub 13" sizes.
4)perhaps HD+ 1600x900 resolution optional on 12.5"? In worst case scenarion squeeze 13'' HD+ screen into 12. 1 form factor.

Thats all, for now

 

I'm seeing a pleasing amount of mentions for increased pixel density

 

For my T410s:

- Standard battery plz. 44 WHr is weak, I can barely get 2.5 hours on heavy load. I would give for a heavier notebook if it could squeeze a 56 WHr into that smaller compartment.

- 1.8" mSATA but then T420s and x220 get standard 2.5" 7mm drives (ALOT more choices for 2.5" SSDs with spacers than 1.8" SSDs)

- Go back to the old school ThinkPad style keyboard and palmrest. It feels like there is a new layer, makes it feel sleek and shiny. I preferred the older _60/61 style palmrest and keyboard feel. I also like the clicking sound of the older ThinkPad keyboard.

For my prospective x220:

- At least offer ULV Sandy Bridge CPU's like on x200. I'd take less heat for slightly lower clock speeds and would still trod over ULV Core 2 Duo chips

- Best thing would be an IPS higher resolution screen, but worst comes to shove at least a decent TN panel with high resolution.

- Same as above, revert back to _60/61 style keyboard and palmrest. So used to it on my Z series and my T60.

- The standard LED indicator lights found on the inverter portion of the LCD bezel

- Make that battery slice easier to find.

 

Sigh. No, you had people claiming that Lenovo decided that, based on their business plans, that it wasn't something they wanted to do, likely due to cost.

Lenovo (and IBM before them) have made plenty of duds. Hey, if you want some examples of really unpleasant business practices, look back at the politics around the introduction of MCA. Or, if you want a more recent example of pretty poor response to a very real issue, watch the PR trainwreck that was the initial T400/T500 keyboard design.

With regards to the X220's drive size, no disagreement there. It really does seem like they could have made a 9.5mm drive work.

Now, just so my post is vaguely on topic, my wishlist would be this:

X220:

+ WXGA MVA panel (CMO makes these, or at least used to a year or so ago.)
+ an external 3G antenna like the X6x series
+ option for a palmrest without a trackpad (alternately, get Synaptics to produce decent drivers)


T420:

+ add a small foam shim above the UltraBay to support the far-right of the keyboard a bit better
+ stop changing the damn dock design
+ stop changing the damn battery design
+ get off my lawn

 

Nope. It was claimed, among other things, by adopting as gospel a single blog post by a single Lenovo employee, that Lenovo was forced to abandon 16:10 by the screen manufacturers.

 

Because the parts were more expensive. Lenovo has to make money to be a going concern.

According to erik, the only one in the US who's probably got the ULV, the ULV runs at about the same temps as the standard voltage CPUs, but they do offer a bit more battery life.

 

Nice try. But here's how the conversation has gone so far:

(Here fraushai was arguing that Lenovo was engaging in somewhat artificial product line segmentation, by intentionally making the X201s more expensive from the beginning to make some people pay for the privilege of more portability, when they could have made the X201s for the same price if they had set out to sell as many of them as the X201 etc. In fact miniaturization does cost money often in general, but the microminiaturization costs of such pricey components as processors and drives are pretty much the same across the board; the X201s was not offered with only SSDs, for example, so nothing inherently made it much more expensive to make except the limited production runs.

In fact to balance any extra costs of producing smaller components such as DVD drives-- whoops, bad example-- or LCD screens-- whoops, bad example... Hmm, guess there aren't any good examples off the top of my head. But anyway, to balance any such costs would be some raw materials savings.)

Then you wrote,

Well, yeah-- because they were priced higher, since offering a more desirable machine serving the same market need, which does not cost inherently (substantially) more to make presuming same-sized production runs, at the same price as a less desirable model, just doesn't make sense. That is, one should either just decide to take the market by storm by offering the more desirable one at the lower contemplated price point, or one should decide to price the more desirable one higher because otherwise the less desirable one won't sell, the more-desirable one will seem like more of a "halo" or flagship item, etc. Lenovo chose to intentionally price the X201s higher because that was simply their choice, to offer similar models at different price points to presumably increase their profits.

I'm not saying that's wrong, just that it's essentially a circular argument to say that X2xxs models cost more because the parts cost more (because of the hidden fact that the only reason that's true is due to the intentionally limited production runs).

I'm assuming that the same people who bought the X201 would in huge proportion have loved to have X201s notebooks instead for a similar price, for obvious reasons: more portability in a product whose primary virtue is portability, etc. I also simply don't see how anything in an X201s would be inherently much more expensive to make compared to the X201.

 

If it is the same heatsink/fan combination, that makes no sense. Better battery life is always good though.

 

I am thus far unconvinced by what most members here have attributed to be the cause of the shift towards 16:9 screens - increased cost and reduced availability of 16:10 screens. This argument is flawed because:

- screens with higher resolution/ips screens are probably more expensive to produce, but there is a general shift towards these
- larger screens (in terms of diameter) are more expensive to produce according to this theory, but there is also a general trend toward larger screens (whether for TV or PCs)

There has to be another explanation that might not be privy to the most members here.

 

I concluded that the ULV CPU in my Toshiba R500 actually used as much power as a standard CPU running at the same speed. Maybe Toshiba reached the same conclusion because they moved to standard CPUs in the more recent R series and were able to reduce their prices substantially.

What would be nice would be the equivalent of the P series CPUs: Pay a modest price premium to get full performance CPUs which run at slightly lower power.

John

 

I'm sure you're right in that more people would buy the X201s if it cost the same as the X201, but the X201s cost more to produce. You're left with two choices, sell it at a loss or price it higher, which means fewer people will buy it. It's sort of the chicken and egg thing here.

Now if the X201s was produced in the same quantity as the X201, I'm sure you could wring out some extra savings, but it's still more expensive to produce in my opinion and are there enough buyers willing to pony up? I think the answer to that question is no.

While there certainly are some users who would prefer the higher resolution LCD offered on the X201s, they are out proportion here to the people who buy ThinkPads. The people here are enthusiasts and are more likely to want that stuff. You must understand the people who mostly buy ThinkPads are businesses, the government and education. They don't care a lick about high resolution LCDs, Thunderbolt, GPUs in 12" notebooks, etc. They care most about cost and compatibility, and will argue tooth and nail over a $25 increase in unit cost. That's the market Lenovo plays to and the people here are just a drop in the bucket.

 

I wouldn't say IPS is a trend. It's just as rare as before, with only one easily-accessible IPS option in the mainstream market: the X220. Other IPS displays are still in high-end workstations and tablets.

Also, screen area for the same advertised diagonal size is reduced in 16:9 displays as compared with 16:10 displays. Less area means less material used, in turn resulting in lower costs. See below for a few examples:

Code:

[B]16:9[/B]
15.6" diagonal: 13.6" x 7.65" = 104.04 in^2
14.0" diagonal: 12.2" × 6.86" = 83.69 in^2
14.5" diagonal: 12.64" × 7.11" = 89.87 in^2
12.5" diagonal: 10.9" × 6.13" = 66.82 in^2

[B]16:10[/B]
15.4" diagonal: 13.06" x 8.16" = 106.57 in^2
14.1" diagonal: 11.96" × 7.47" = 89.34 in^2
12.1" diagonal: 10.55" × 5.93" = 62.56 in^2

Obviously, it's not a perfect shift (ie: a 12.5" display still has more area than a 12.1" display), but it is a fact that a 16:9 display can have a larger advertised diagonal than a 16:10 display with the same area. So, larger screens in terms of diagonal are the trend; larger screens in terms of area are not the trend.

 

Well, the X220 with the IPS screen, being so massively produced and commercially successful, is already part of that trend. And please don't forget that Apple has been using IPS screens in all of its products all these years More recently, other manufacturers like Samsung and Asus are moving towards that direction as well. There is a clear trend towards better quality displays, and being IPS is one of the criteria.

[/QUOTE]
Also, screen area for the same advertised diagonal size is reduced in 16:9 displays as compared with 16:10 displays. Less area means less material used, in turn resulting in lower costs. See below for a few examples [...]
[/QUOTE]

You misunderstood what I meant. TV monitors, laptop and desktop monitors getting larger and larger these days. Ten years ago, I don't think you can find a 17 inch or 18 inch laptop, but now there's the Alienware, HP and Sager. Most desktop monitors were 15 inch those days but nowadays the standard is 19 - 23 inch monitors. Same with TVs. They are getting larger. This is inconsistent with your theory that the manufacturers have their priority set on reducing screen sizes. It's quite simply untrue.

Another argument not mentioned in my previous post is the obvious trend of decreasing cost of LCD panels over the past, say, twenty years. I still remembered when I first got my 15 inch LCD for my Windows 95 machine, it cost more than 2000 bucks. One of the reasons why laptops used to be so expensive and unaffordable was also because of the high cost of LCD panels. Essentially screen prices have dropped dramatically. It is impossible to argue that manufacturers are abandoning 16:10 screens just because the horinzontal rim of screen cost too much, considering the downward trend of LCD prices and the fact that they are constantly producing larger laptops (with larger screens.)

 

Unless we can stop the trend, eventually we will end up with screens shaped like like this:



They can make a lot of those from one sheet.

John

 

The X201s cost more to produce because it had a different chassis (and other components too) from the X201, and therefore suffered from diseconomies of scale, i.e. two production lines had to be sustained, and thus a higher cost in labour, material procurement, etc. was incurred. It did not have a higher production cost because the chassis was more expensive to produce - quite simply because it isn't. Both are pieces of plastic produced by a mould and I would go as far as to argue that the smaller chassis cost less to produce because of the smaller amount of raw material required. I don't know why you can be so blind about that.

Fundamentally, it is naive to think that the cost of production of a unit is in any way related to its value to consumers. With your logic, the X220 definitely has a higher production cost than the X201 (and X201s) because of all its higher utility (all the pros that you've been peddling all along). But it isn't. It was cheaper to produce because it was produced at a higher quantity and benefited from economies of scale. The cost of design was lower. The cost of procuring raw materials was lower. Less training was required to teach workers to assemble CTO orders, so on and so forth.

And all the things I have mentioned occured because Lenovo decided to market the X220 as a mainstream product, unlike the X201s. That is why it is seller at a cheaper price - just think: Did you ever seen 1/10th as much coupons for the X201s as there are now for the X220? It's all about marketing, not about the intrinsic cost of production.

 

Where did I say that the cost of production of a unit is in any way related to its value to consumers? What I said was:

therefore it cost more for Lenovo to produce, which means they had to sell it for more or take a loss on the sale. Because the bulk of Lenovo's customers are large entities who are most interested in cost and compatibility with their system. Do you think they use coupons to buy ThinkPads? No, the tell Lenovo they're interested in 100,000 notebooks and ask, what's the cost per unit? They're for the most part unwilling to pay for the features that the people here want. This is how you end up with systems like the X120e. It's functional and cheap. This is the reality Lenovo deals with.

 

You might have missed that but tigerdirect got two x220s models with i3 ULV SB cpu's on offer at ebay for pretty decent prices, I just hope its not e220s listed as x220s.