Hacker News Reader

Comment by wysiwtf | Hacker News Reader

Are you sure that X220 is similar enough to an Air, it doesn't look like an air and the design specs are quite bulkier:

MacBook Air 11 inch: Height: .68 Weight: 2.38

MacBook Air 13 inch: Height: .68 Weight: 2.96

X220 12 inch: Height: 1.25 Weight: 3.6

I don't think it matters that you spec'ed it out to be slightly faster, I bet many of the people who want an Air-like notebook want the thinnest, cleanest, lightest notebook that can still perform very close to a traditional fat notebook, the X220 probably isn't what they're looking for.

View on HN

A fairer comparison might be the X220 with the 6 cell battery which is about 2.9 lbs and around 10 hours (advertised). It also has a 12.5" IPS screen.

I believe the 3.6 lbs you mentioned is with the 9 cell 15 hour battery.

For comparison the 11" and 13" Macbook Airs are rated 5 and 7 hours, respectively.

It's 3.3 pounds with the 6 cell battery.

2.9: http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPo...

He links a picture that says 2.9+ lbs., which I'll guess is possible but reeks of dodginess given that 90% of the major reviews (cnet, pcmag, engadget, laptopmag, all quote 3.3 (or 3.5) pounds for 6 cell configuration, these are easy to find with google, here's one that weighed it himself:

http://www.studenttechguide.com/2011/08/lenovo-thinkpad-x220...

I'm guessing 2.9 pounds might be for the originally planned 3 cell battery version which may be offered somehow but is not configurable through the online order at lenovo.

I have both an MBA and an X220 and in everyday use I think the two machines are comparable in feel and weight. Of course the x220 is a little bit bigger and heavier but the difference isn't really noticeable. In the end, both are very portable and light note books.

I'd rather compare things like OS preference, battery life, performance needs and / or the quality of the keyboard.

Apple had to send their engineers over to Intel to teach them how to build the chips they wanted for the Airs. They wanted lower Ghz.

Believe it or not, people once did productive work on a computer with a 386 chip. Fastest does not necessarily equate with best.

EDIT: I misinterpreted the above comment. It's Friday and I'm sleepy.

I think you've misread my comment.

The extra Mhz here is wasted because Apple intentionally values the heat/battery dynamics more in this product. That's how the whole 1.7 Ghz lines of the Core Duo (and now the Core i5/i7) chips came about: Apple worked with intel to make the chips and got a good deal of exclusivity. This was all made clear when the Macbook Air debuted with Paul Otellini and Jobs onstage together.

The same Intel that came up with the first Pentium M? Yeah, I'm calling bull shit on this story.

It's not unusual for hardware companies to work with chip companies. Nintendo works with their CPU suppliers to build a custom processor for their consoles. I doubt Steko is saying Apple taught Intel how to do chips right even though it came out that way.

While Apple probably didn't help Intel design the Core 2 Duo (they only had serious in-house processor design stuff recently, and it's ARM-oriented), it's quite possible they exerted pressure on them to make such a thing. The Core Duo and Core 2 Duo were a _major_ turnaround for Intel; they essentially abandoned the gigahertz at whatever price doctrine they'd been pursuing since the P4.

The Core Duo, in particular, was essentially _only_ found in Macs; it had very limited deployment elsewhere. It fits very well with the circumstances of the Intel switchover; Apple couldn't have used the P4M for its laptops (far too power-hungry vs the G4), or the PM (barely faster than the G4 at all, used somewhat more power).

Yes. The grandfather's post claimed Apple's CPU engineers were involved, and it is that characterization I object to.

Incidentally, as I own a Thinkpad with a Core Duo CPU (July 2004 T60p, SL8VN), I think it might have been more accurate to emphasize "essentially" rather than "only."

Yep; they did make it outside Apple, but only barely. There were a few products from other companies using them, mostly low-power laptops, and of course they lived on for a year or so more as a budget chip branded as a Pentium.

Core Duo was in a ton of Dells, HPs, and so forth.

(Not that most of what you've been saying is untrue, but this particular part is a bit dodgy.)

Proof? Links?

Google the Macbook Air keynote?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com