MSI has been quite the snake of late. Just over the past fortnight alone the outfit has slyly rolled out a new
Wind Top all-in-one PC, a revamped
X-Slim X600 Pro and now a brand new
CULV rig that promises up to 9 hours of battery life and weighs just 3.31 pounds. The 13.4-inch X-Slim X350 doesn't deviate from the design mantra established in earlier
X-Slim models, and within you'll find an Intel CULV Core 2 Duo processor, a 'chiclet' keyboard, LED-backlit 1,366 x 768 resolution display, an integrated HDMI socket, GMA 4500MHD graphics set, 2GB of DDR2 RAM, a 1.3 megapixel webcam, gigabit Ethernet, optional Bluetooth, WiFi, an SD / MMC card reader, audio in / out, a couple of USB 2.0 sockets and Windows 7 Home Premium runnin' the show. There's also an optional external optical drive available (DVD or Blu-ray), your choice of a 4- or 8-cell battery, VGA output and a pair of inbuilt speakers. Mum's the word on pricing and availability, but we suspect the firm will be showcasing this shortly when CES kicks off.
posted December 15th 2009 9:42AM
I was pretty excited until I saw... "GMA 4500MHD".. ugh
@lifesavers Battery life is up to 9 hours on the X350, but MSI are keeping quiet on similar estimates for the X600 Pro. No word on when either machine will go on sale, nor for how much
http://bit.ly/msi-xslim-x350
the hp dv2z is better it has a 1280x800 res
thats why i like it more
@angelwolf To be fare its 1,366 x 768 (1049088) has 25088 more pixels then 1280x800 (1024000). That's %2.45 more, but i can understand how more vertical pixels are more useful.
@NeatOman
The number of pixels does not always mean it is an advantage. My screen is so wide (but not enough for 2 windows side by side) that I rarely, if ever, use all the horizontal pixels. I do, however, use the vertical pixels and could most definitely use more. In other words the "higher pixel count" is, in effect, less.
@NeatOman
I need more vertical pixels, not more vertical pixels.
@Wowzers
Edit: not more horizontal pixels*
I need to start reading what I write before I click submit! =D
Problems with this are...1.) Graphics card (as mentioned), 2.) Resolution (weird?)..everything else is very nice though.
Imo these kind of netbooks will never be more than "just another one" till the manufacturers start to look more in to alternative graphics solutions like the ASUS 1201N. That's why the 1201N is so interesting to me.
@Kant
I just got the Asus UL30Vt-x1. It has pretty much the same specs except it has discrete switchable graphics. You can either use the integrated graphics (Intel 4500HD) or the discrete graphics (NVidia G210m) and it gets 10 hours on battery. I love it. exactly what I was looking for. I was looking at the 1201N until I saw this. Although it was more expensive. Just FYI
plus it has DDR3 RAM
@Panhandle Damn, I want that laptop badly but I got my laptop less than two years ago and it's way too early for me to get a new one. But why didn't people start using switchable graphics more before? And that UL30vt-foo-x-y-z (yay asus naming) is actually reasonably priced too. Hopefully by the time I'm ready for a new laptop this kind of thing will be much more common.
@Panhandle Plus %33 overclock
@Panhandle I feel the same way as you. I was waiting for 1201N and I am so glad it took so long cuz I am so in love with my ul30vt
With the poor build quality of the previous x-slims and the lackluster specs on this new model, this laptop better be $500 or less, or you'd be much better off going with an Acer Timeline or ASUS UL and some of the upcoming Lenovos.
Looked really, good, then I thought wait, Blu-ray option with integrated GMA, and VGA output? damn, they could have made it way better but using a better GPU and HDMI out
will come in a choice of either an Intel Pentium Dual Core SU4100 or Core 2 Duo SU7300
More Info & Pics:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msiwind.es%2F2009%2F12%2F14%2Fexclusiva-todo-sobre-el-nuevo-msi-x-slim-x350-nuevas-fotografias%2F
@angelwolf To be fare its 1,366 x 768 (1049088) has 25088 more pixels then 1280x800 (1024000). That's %2.45 more, but i can understand how more vertical pixels are more useful.