PDA

View Full Version : X300 vs Air


MacBytes
Feb 28, 2008, 07:45 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Reviews
Link: X300 vs Air (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20080228084542)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

bigandy
Feb 28, 2008, 08:02 AM
I can't believe I wasted my time reading that.

Plymouthbreezer
Feb 28, 2008, 08:04 AM
Meh, each will find its userbase - it will more or less come down to the OS question, not the points illuminated upon in that review.

nagromme
Feb 28, 2008, 08:09 AM
I think I've finally learned the pattern: article from NZ = Apple-bashing.

I'll save you the click and share some gems:

"Air's Leopard is cute, and secure, and its back-up software is very 2001: A Space Odyssey. But we prefer to live in the wider world opened by the X300's Windows Vista."

(They then mention that you CAN run Windows on the Air but that you shouldn't for "best performance." Utter fiction. In fact, the Air is FASTER than the X300, which is only 1.2 Ghz.)

So forget security and backups--instead enjoy the "wider world" of Vista :o Which by all reports is NOT the OS you want to run on only 1.2 Ghz. Other slow ultraportables use XP--for a reason.

They consider input to be a tie score because the multitouch trackpad and lighted keys, together, are matched by the delight of the trackpoint nub :o

One might almost think they were fishing for ANY reason to prefer the thicker, slower X300: they've created a category "disaster-friendliness" in which the X300 beats the Air. Why? Because it has holes (as does the Air) in the bottom of the case... this allowing spills to drain out (!) and because the plastic that they THEMSELVES found flimsy is claimed to be stronger than magnesium laptops by Lenovo. So they believed the manufacturer instead of themselves... and completely failed to compare to the rigidly-curved aluminum (not magnesium) of the Air. So, both have holes (?) and the Air is super-rigid while the X300 "didn't feel especially tough"... yet the X300 wins that category.

LeviG
Feb 28, 2008, 08:23 AM
since when did the x300 have wi-max???

Also I like how the x300 is cheaper than air and you would have to add a 500GB drive - um wouldn't that be needed on the x300 too :rolleyes:

Now I'm not saying the air is perfect its far from it but blimey, that review isn't half biased :D

ntg
Feb 28, 2008, 08:34 AM
I never learn, do I?

I just wasted another 4 minutes of my life reading that cr@p!!:eek:

Why can't I ever remember....

someone, please help me...

nig.
:(

Quillz
Feb 28, 2008, 08:40 AM
(They then mention that you CAN run Windows on the Air but that you shouldn't for "best performance." Utter fiction. In fact, the Air is FASTER than the X300, which is only 1.2 Ghz.)

The Air's 1.6/1.8 GHz processor is hardly any faster. There's so little real world difference between 400/600 MHz that it's hardly noticeable.

pbkiller
Feb 28, 2008, 08:42 AM
Is that guy seriously? $5k for an MBAIR? Not even the maxed out with Applecare, superdrive, ethernet, magline safe port charger, .mac, etc comes up to $5k....

And Vista over Leopard? hahaha! even Vista users know that Leopard is a killer. The guys hasnt used a Mac in his lifetime.

If people dont have evidence to back up their beef at Apple, please dont post them.

hahaha i'll go ahead and buy me 100 GB hard drive for $700... Wait, that was how many years ago?

unbelieveable...

Passante
Feb 28, 2008, 09:18 AM
Don't you love the way the reviewer compares weight X300 without the extra battery but adds the extra battery when run time is evaluated. Its so much fun watching PC fan boys contort themselves to make Apple products look bad.

Hertog
Feb 28, 2008, 09:27 AM
Is that guy seriously? $5k for an MBAIR? Not even the maxed out with Applecare, superdrive, ethernet, magline safe port charger, .mac, etc comes up to $5k....


Even though the reviewer does make some other mistakes, please keep in mind that it is an article from New Zealand, so the prices are in New Zealand Dollars. $5000 in NZD is about $4000 in USD, so his pricing is correct.

MNDMatt
Feb 28, 2008, 12:27 PM
"...for the really pervese, Hackintosh will put the MacOS on a PC. But for best performance, keep things native."

That's funny... considering Vista has been found to run faster on a Mac than PC.

That guy is a joke...

nagromme
Feb 28, 2008, 01:31 PM
The Air's 1.6/1.8 GHz processor is hardly any faster. There's so little real world difference between 400/600 MHz that it's hardly noticeable.

Right, but the article says the Air is too SLOW to run Vista--while they like Vista on the slower X300.

And from tests I've seen of Vista on a 1.2Ghz Sony vs. Vista on an Air, that 50% additional speed on the Air 1.8 is noticeable.

BongoBanger
Feb 28, 2008, 01:33 PM
That's funny... considering Vista has been found to run faster on a Mac than PC.

That guy is a joke...

Wrong. It ran faster on the Macbook Pro as reviewed against other laptops, it doesn't run faster full stop.

In any event it's been superseded.

Also, not seeing what the whining is about. The Air wins the points it should, the X300 the ones it should.

mklos
Feb 28, 2008, 09:22 PM
I think where people are getting a little upset is where they said they'd rather have Windows Vista than Leopard. His points about Vista aren't very valid and are quite full of crap, such as where the author comments in a response to someone else's comment below the story where he says Vista is a fast OS. That is complete and utter crap! As a person who works on both PCs and Macs all day long, any PC that comes into the place where I work with Windows Vista on it complains about the same thing, it runs slow. And these are new PCs fresh out of the box. Mostly because they don't ship with enough RAM (because 1GB isn't enough!). So you need to upgrade your system before you even get to use it. At least Leopard is useable with 1 GB easily for a regular person. (that is a person who doesn't have specific needs like graphics, using parallels/fusion, etc.)

SPUY767
Feb 28, 2008, 09:53 PM
I think where people are getting a little upset is where they said they'd rather have Windows Vista than Leopard. His points about Vista aren't very valid and are quite full of crap, such as where the author comments in a response to someone else's comment below the story where he says Vista is a fast OS. That is complete and utter crap! As a person who works on both PCs and Macs all day long, any PC that comes into the place where I work with Windows Vista on it complains about the same thing, it runs slow. And these are new PCs fresh out of the box. Mostly because they don't ship with enough RAM (because 1GB isn't enough!). So you need to upgrade your system before you even get to use it. At least Leopard is useable with 1 GB easily for a regular person. (that is a person who doesn't have specific needs like graphics, using parallels/fusion, etc.)

I was rather amazed to see that Vista ran almost unbearably slow on my Mac Pro. When my XP partition got cooties, I first installed Vista, was amazed at how crappy it ran, so I used a VLK verison of server 2003 to run my PC apps. Runs brilliantly, and doesn't have any of the annoying features that were imbedded like deer ticks into even XP Pro.

shadowfax
Feb 29, 2008, 02:38 AM
The Air's 1.6/1.8 GHz processor is hardly any faster. There's so little real world difference between 400/600 MHz that it's hardly noticeable.

I would hold the press on a comment like that until I saw some numbers. How much L2 is in the 1.2 GHz ULV processor? also, 1.8 GHz is 1.5 times--50%--more computational power than 1.2 GHz. That may not make a very significant difference ALL the time, but you can darn well bet that will make a HUGE difference if you ever want to play an encoded HD video.

I want to see some benchmarks of this ULV processor in regular tasks before I believe anything like "600 MHz is hardly noticeable." I have a feeling that I would miss it a lot--a heck of a lot more than the "option" to tote 2 extra $100 batteries and a firewire port.

BongoBanger
Feb 29, 2008, 06:00 AM
I think where people are getting a little upset is where they said they'd rather have Windows Vista than Leopard. His points about Vista aren't very valid and are quite full of crap, such as where the author comments in a response to someone else's comment below the story where he says Vista is a fast OS. That is complete and utter crap! As a person who works on both PCs and Macs all day long, any PC that comes into the place where I work with Windows Vista on it complains about the same thing, it runs slow. And these are new PCs fresh out of the box. Mostly because they don't ship with enough RAM (because 1GB isn't enough!). So you need to upgrade your system before you even get to use it. At least Leopard is useable with 1 GB easily for a regular person. (that is a person who doesn't have specific needs like graphics, using parallels/fusion, etc.)

True, but the Lenovo ships with a minimum of 2GB so it's a moot point.

elppa
Feb 29, 2008, 11:18 AM
Vista will run natively on a MacBook Air. So I really don't understand that.

How multi-touch can be compared to some irritating little ball is beyond me.

My opinions maybe, but this article is pretty biased. They appear to be looking for reasons to squeeze as many points out for the Lenovo whilst glossing over good points on the Air.

digitalnicotine
Feb 29, 2008, 12:06 PM
That was hilarious! If he had given an honest, unbiased review, I would have thought the X300 was a nice little alternative setup for Vista fans who find bootcamp overwhelming. But now, after reading all the blatantly obvious bias and disproportionate comparisons, I have to question the authors credibility, and ethics.

shadowfax
Feb 29, 2008, 12:38 PM
To me, it really does make you realize something. I think there are a lot of people that would like you to think that the fact that the X300 has a DVD drive and a removable battery means it's automatically better--not to mention the spare ports. But for whatever reason, this guys didn't seem to think that was enough--he realizes that the MacBook Air is actually STILL better. Had to make up false stuff to make it seem worse. Nice.

kuwisdelu
Feb 29, 2008, 01:58 PM
I think he really likes the design of the Air, but has no idea when it comes to OS X. After all, notice he did give a "sex appeal" category, which he could have taken out if he was completely biased toward Lenovo.

Also note that the review's unstated conclusion is that anyone who doesn't care for the clitoris on the X300 and who isn't braindead enough to realize Leopard > Vista will give the "Input" and "OS" categories to the Air, making it the clear choice winner.

Techguy172
Feb 29, 2008, 05:43 PM
You really can't say what's better because it's all prefernce if you prefer either os then it could go either way and while I disagree performance wise I think that if it had 4GB's of ram it really go the other way clock speed isn't everything. The Screen is also better now LED is nice but not essential but the higher Res really makes things nicer.

They both have the same Hard Drives, so no difference their but the CD drive is what really makes it nice for the Lenovo. now some people would never notice the difference and some people would but it's the option that's nice. I think apple went a little too far with the Thickness or "thinness", which ever you like but It's just too limited for the average person. I think.

Zwhaler
Mar 1, 2008, 11:29 PM
That's funny... considering Vista has been found to run faster on a Mac than PC.

That guy is a joke...

Exactly, not to mention that Vista's performance is crap anyway... which is the only OS that the X300 runs natively.

teknikal90
Mar 2, 2008, 02:42 AM
haha.all it came down to...was bias.
like literally.x300 only won because the writer prefers windows over mac.understandable since he works for pc world...
so really, these to machines are equals.
if you like mac, get air..if you like windows...get x300.
no big fuss.

BongoBanger
Mar 2, 2008, 03:18 AM
Exactly, not to mention that Vista's performance is crap anyway... which is the only OS that the X300 runs natively.

Wrong. Macs run Windows better than some machines - which, given their Intel architecture and high end components you would expect - but by no means all of them. As for Leopard being better than Vista, for individual use, yes at the moment, for business, no.

In any event, since you cant get an XPS M1330 weighing just under 4lbs with a 2.5GHz Penryn chip both the Air and the X300 are a bit pointless now.

Roba
Mar 2, 2008, 04:46 AM
The Sony TZ uses a 1.2 ULV voltage processor, the x300 uses a LV voltage processor and the MBA uses a L voltage processor.

The MBA will most probably struggle a bit with Parallels and the 2GB of ram limitation. I personally would not use Vista on a PC with less than 3GB of ram.

Sesshi
Mar 2, 2008, 08:12 AM
I think where people are getting a little upset is where they said they'd rather have Windows Vista than Leopard. His points about Vista aren't very valid and are quite full of crap, such as where the author comments in a response to someone else's comment below the story where he says Vista is a fast OS. That is complete and utter crap! As a person who works on both PCs and Macs all day long, any PC that comes into the place where I work with Windows Vista on it complains about the same thing, it runs slow. And these are new PCs fresh out of the box. Mostly because they don't ship with enough RAM (because 1GB isn't enough!). So you need to upgrade your system before you even get to use it. At least Leopard is useable with 1 GB easily for a regular person. (that is a person who doesn't have specific needs like graphics, using parallels/fusion, etc.)


You mean like Macs used to ship with 512MB RAM with Tiger? It's a price-driven market. If you buy a bottom of the range machine, there are functional compromises which they don't always tell you.

Also, I guess that not many of you have an Air, let alone an XPS M1330, a Sony SZ, TZ, G or even UX (with an X300 on order) - and as the owner of those machines and more, I can tell you that for what you need to do on the move, the Windows equivalents of the Air make far more sense for the vast majority of people who will be using the machine for work.

That's not just because it runs Vista, which is now a mature and perfectly usable OS even on ULV machines (OK, so it's a stretch on the 1Ghz machines but it's OK on the 1.2s, should be better on the 1.3's) but because of what another poster indirectly referred to - the wider picture. Most business and even studenty users don't need the power of a desktop on the move: What they need to do is fairly limited in terms of horsepower requirement, and most of the slower Windows ultraportables have far better wireless connectivity than the Air, and that is supremely important if you do work on the move. As an experienced Tiger user, I can't even tether the N95 to this Air properly so I've got no 3G on the move right now for starters. You might say "Use the USB 3G modem" - I buy this machine for style, am I going to have something resembling a giant tampon hanging off the side? No! Tethering any 3G phone to a Vista machine can be done in about 6 clicks and there's none of this nonsense with Ross Barkman's scripts (although for the times I have struggled with a Mac, I thank you Ross).

As for the Windows usability of the Air, are you going to be constantly booting between OS's? For me that's not even a remotely viable option - and running it in a virtual machine involves additional load to the machine which puts it at even more of a disadvantage against the other ultraportables.

Then there's power. Not only does the TZ and UX charge faster when being 'topped up', the TZ is still in the Air's ballpark with extended batteries and has a genuine all-day socket-free endurance.

You have to boil it down to the basics. The Air is a gorgeous machine, but it is (extremely, in many respects) flawed in comparison to the front-runner ultraportables for life as an ultraportable. It is for people for whom style counts more than function and is the most focused example of Apple's current direction: Flash over substance. Admit it, you're shallow.

The TZ still takes the crown for me as an everyday ultraportable and I suspect the X300 will be equally heavily used, but the Air is a beautiful show-off machine which I will venture out with for meetings and other public engagements - until the next show-off machine comes out, of course ;) I will freely admit I have my shallow moments, but that is because I have solid machines to fall back on.

MicBook
Mar 2, 2008, 10:15 AM
Total crap the guy wouldn't know a good computer if it was handed to him

mklos
Mar 3, 2008, 06:44 PM
You mean like Macs used to ship with 512MB RAM with Tiger? It's a price-driven market. If you buy a bottom of the range machine, there are functional compromises which they don't always tell you.




But you can easily run a Mac with Tiger on 512MB. Not everyone is doing CPU and memory intensive things here. You have to think about what others do and not just yourself. Requiring or even having to recommend 2GB of RAM just to run Vista properly isn't necessarily a good thing. Leopard doesn't even require that (unless you want to dual boot to Windows)]/i]. You can run Leopard on 1GB of RAM, and even 768MB of RAM [i](depending on what you're doing).

I actually don't even know why Apple put a CPU speed restriction on Leopard. A user could easily use Leopard with a 700 MHz G4 Mac. Sure, take away all G3 support, but why G4? I was easily able to use beta's on a 450 MHz G4 Cube. It ran just as good as Tiger did.

pondie84
Mar 3, 2008, 07:11 PM
I got a few lines down and saw this:

the Air is yet another design classic from Planet Jobs, with its tapered edges making it look much slimmer than the Air, even though the real-life difference is marginal.

The Air looks slimmer than itself? Way to go with editing people.

Sesshi
Mar 4, 2008, 03:14 AM
But you can easily run a Mac with Tiger on 512MB. Not everyone is doing CPU and memory intensive things here. You have to think about what others do and not just yourself. Requiring or even having to recommend 2GB of RAM just to run Vista properly isn't necessarily a good thing. Leopard doesn't even require that (unless you want to dual boot to Windows)]/i]. You can run Leopard on 1GB of RAM, and even 768MB of RAM [i](depending on what you're doing).

I actually don't even know why Apple put a CPU speed restriction on Leopard. A user could easily use Leopard with a 700 MHz G4 Mac. Sure, take away all G3 support, but why G4? I was easily able to use beta's on a 450 MHz G4 Cube. It ran just as good as Tiger did.

Yes - just as Vista machines with 1Gb and Windows XP machines with 512MB will do the job perfectly well for the same sort of low-impact tasks. If you try and do anything useful (such as multitasking) though in Vista(1Gb)/XP(512MB)/Tiger(512MB)/Leopard(1Gb) situations you will come up against the memory wall in no time.

Like most people here, you're applying different standards to something that isn't (as) familiar to you. Besides, memory is the least of the comparative issues at hand here.

netdog
Mar 4, 2008, 03:24 AM
Seems to me that the x300 is closer to the MacBook in size than the MBA.

johny5
Mar 4, 2008, 03:27 AM
heh i havent fallen for the MacbookAir but that was a biased review if i ever saw one for the x300.

chagla
Apr 11, 2008, 09:39 PM
x300 is such a useless portable machine. darn thing is about 1 inch thick. that's too fat. under 3 pounds? still too much weight. and what am i going to do with a built in dvd? gee, i have better things to do than to listen to music, rip a cd, watch a movie, or back up files on a disc.
who in this world needs 3 usb ports? an ethernet port? why should i have the option to change battery?

don't give me too much options. i don't need them. you know what's best for me. :p

lenovo should take some lessons from apple.

Zwhaler
Apr 11, 2008, 10:32 PM
The Air's 1.6/1.8 GHz processor is hardly any faster. There's so little real world difference between 400/600 MHz that it's hardly noticeable.

The 1.2 X300 versus the 1.8Ghz Air, the Air is 33% faster. That is not hardly noticable, I assure you. And the 1.6Ghz Air is 25% faster than the X300.