Lenovo ThinkPad X301

Earlier this year Lenovo released their ThinkPad X300, a great notebook for the business minded. Recently, the X300 has been updated to the ThinkPad X301 model. With many improvements from its already great predecessor, you can expect great things from the X301.

Performance : The base configuration is equipped with 2GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Due (1.4GHz) U9400 Ultra Low Voltage processor. The ThinkPad X301 achieved a PCMark Vantage score of 3157, which is 400 points higher than most ultraportables. It’s a great score, but still falls about 60 points shy of the Sony VAIO VGN-Z530N’s and almost 500 points shy of the Lenovo ThinkPad X200.

Wi-Fi and Battery Life : The 802.11a/g/n Wi-Fi moves data at an excellent speed of 20.8 MB/s at a distance of 15 feet from the access point, and 18.7 MB/s at 50 feet. These are nice improvements over the 16.7 MB/s and 16.1 MB/s averages presented by the X300, and made for a pleasant surfing experience. Although the default configuration does not include integrated mobile broadband, you can add a 3G connection from AT&T ($80) or Verizon Wireless ($150), which also features integrated GPS. The X301 will support WiMAX and Ultra-Wideband technologies when they become available. When it comes to long battery life, the X301 definitely falls short by quite a bit. Its six cell battery lasted only 3 hours and a half during tests. On the same test, Sony’s VAIO VGN-Z530N lasted 5 hours. A little more should be expected out of ultraportable laptops when it comes to battery life (at least 4 hours). The X301 didn’t fare so well on all of its graphics tests. On the 3DMark03 benchmark, the X301 (which is powered by an Intel GMA X4500MHD graphics card) netted an 1812, a score that’s 400 points higher than its competitors and its predecessor the X300. However, the 3DMark06 score was 200 points less than other machines in its category. F.E.A.R was also tested in auto-detect mode, and the game ran at a miniscule 14fps. When the settings were increased to maximum, it ran at only 6fps. W.O.W ran at 27.4fps, which is okay, but it is important to remember that this is not a gaming laptop, and should not be expected to out perform Alienware, for example. Lenovo’s X301’s boot-up time was a little slower than expected. The X301, with its 64GB SSD, took about 1 minute and 37 seconds to boot-up Windows Vista, almost 30 seconds slower than the average ultraportable and 48 seconds slower than the older X300. The SSD did not disappoint and definitely lived up to its fast transfer time copying a 5 GB folder in about 2 minutes and 40 seconds, however. The SSD has a transfer rate of 32.4 megabytes per second, which is miles ahead of the 13.4 megabyte per second transfer rate of competitors using mechanical drives. If 64GB does not fill your needs for capacity, an upgrade option is available for a 128GB SSD, which costs $400.

iPhone users love their Wi-Fi

A new report from the mobile advertising company Admob says that 42 percent of iPhone Internet requests came from Wi-Fi hot spots rather than AT&T's 3G wireless network in November. This is quite a bit higher than most Wi-Fi capable phones, which typically average about 10 to 20 percent.

Several bloggers say they think iPhone users are gravitating toward Wi-Fi more because AT&T's 3G network is not up to snuff. Om Malik at GigaOm said AT&T's 3G service was as unpredictable as Lindsay Lohan's mood. But I don't really think that is the issue. Personally, I haven't had many problems accessing the data network from my iPhone in New York City. I have had dropped calls. But for the most part, whether I'm on Wi-Fi or AT&T's 3G network, downloading e-mail or accessing the Web from my phone works pretty well. I think there are two reasons why iPhone users are opting for Wi-Fi when it's available. And these reasons could provide some interesting lessons for phone manufacturers and wireless carriers. For one, accessing a Wi-Fi access point on the iPhone is easy. I have Wi-Fi access turned on on my phone. Whenever I fire up the browser or download e-mail, a list of available networks pops up. If I'm home or in a network I've already been on, most times the phone will automatically connect via Wi-Fi instead of the 3G network. I don't have to really think about it. It just happens. So most times, as a user, I'm not consciously deciding to use Wi-Fi or not. But whether I choose a Wi-Fi network or not, downloads from the Wi-Fi network are noticeably faster, which is why I have the Wi-Fi option turned on in the first place. So what does this really mean for wireless operators? I think it's pretty obvious. Wireless users want fast networks, especially when they're using a device like the iPhone, which is made for the Internet. They want to browse Web pages and download e-mails quickly. If Wi-Fi is the fastest network available, then people will use it. If AT&T is able to significantly increase the speeds on its network, which the company promises it will do soon, then people will use that network. I also think Admob's findings might serve as a cautionary signal to Verizon Wireless, which has opted not to support Wi-Fi on some of its hottest phones, such as the BlackBerry Storm. Verizon said the Storm, which is a touch screen smartphone that competes head-to-head with the iPhone, didn't include Wi-Fi support because it would eat up too much battery life and make the device too bulky. But I think the lack of Wi-Fi may prove to be a negative for the Strorm, as it could be one factor that pushes some consumers toward the iPhone, if they're considering both devices. The thing is I'm not really sure why Verizon is resisting Wi-Fi. It's true that a device with Wi-Fi capability may access free hot spots rather than the 3G cellular network, but since AT&T and Verizon Wireless require customers sign up for data plans when they purchase these devices, I don't see the carriers really losing any money if consumers use free Wi-Fi hot spots for data downloads. In fact, the carriers may actually benefit from their customers using Wi-Fi more, because it puts less strain on their wireless data networks. The real issue could be that Verizon is afraid of voice over IP services like Skype and Truphone, which allow users to bypass the carrier network to make free and low-cost phone calls.