> Very neat, but it's specs are a little lack-lustre

It's kind of the nature of the beast. It's one of the only (or is it the only?) laptops they can do this with, so if you're committed to a FSF-approved machine you're stuck with old hardware.

> It's one of the only (or is it the only?) laptops

One of the only; there are several other models that are supported by Libreboot[0]. Of those, Gluglug used to sell X60, X60s, and (briefly) T60 Thinkpads as well.

[0]: http://libreboot.org/docs/hcl/index.html#supported_list

Interestingly enough there are also two MacBooks there (the early plastic ones), but they're based on very similar hardware to the X60.

Why is that? From the site I see that it's just a modified X200, wouldn't they for example be able to modify a more modern model? Does Intel have special measures to prevent that? Or is it simply reverse engineering that hasn't been achieved yet?

AIUI, it's primarily a matter of the machines for which libreboot support exists. So, for example, the X60 and its tablet version are supported, but the X61(t) (of which I have two in a box somewhere) aren't. This is a terrible bummer for me, because that's still one of my favorite machines I've ever owned.

Newer chips require more binary blobs. IIRC the graphics chips are the biggest offenders.

Intel started embedding a processor in the chipset called the Management Engine. In vPro systems it powers the AMT features (remote control, McAfee virus scanner outside the OS control, various other things), but it's around everywhere.

The X200 contains the last chipset where this processor was optional - if it comes with no firmware, it simply disables itself.

Newer chipsets sometimes feature a recovery/service mode (up to 30 minutes of activity before the device shuts down, with limited capabilities, eg. no power management).

Now, this chip wouldn't be so bad, but unfortunately it only runs on firmware signed by Intel. Lack of signature means that the system doesn't run, or only in that service mode.

Since that project hasn't managed to cracked RSA2048 keys (and who did?), that firmware precludes using newer Intel chipsets.

It's been a long time since I've built a computer myself, but back in the day the Intel chipsets weren't the only ones that could boot Intel processors unless I'm mistaken there were always 1 or 2 alternatives. Or is this not the case for laptop systems? And what about AMD, do they do the same thing?

http://shop.amd.com/en-us/business/notebook/20DE001RUS

They do have laptops with AMD chipsets.

Intel CPUs are tied to specific Intel chipsets these days, with no third party vendors.

AMD used to be much better (they have some small firmware for a support function that was signed, but even that was so half-hearted that one coreboot developer managed to recover the key - but didn't publish it).

These days they support ARM Trust Zone (with an ARM processor), and that part of the system is all signed (as "Trust" doesn't mean that _you_ can trust it).

It's Hollywood, essentially - can't have you crack your movie-playing device to copy their precious bits. And what else would anybody use a computer for, if not for watching blockbuster movies?

That hasn't been the case for a long time (a decade?). Nowadays you can only use Intel chipsets, even in desktop systems. I believe it's the same for AMD.

modern models have the firmware encrypted + signed, so its a great deal harder to modify it, added in with the fact that intel requires several binary blobs to even boot modern processors...

Libreboot is not supported on newer models.

That CPU is still much faster than some of the newer Atoms, for example:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core2+Duo+P840...

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Atom+Z3735F+%4...

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Atom+C2338+%40...

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Atom+E3845+%40...

(Look at the single-thread rating and you'll see that a single Core 2 core is 2-3x faster than a single Atom core.)

Unless you're doing something particularly CPU-intensive, which doesn't tend to be the use-case for a 12.1" ultralight laptop, that processor is more than enough. The small screen resolution may get a bit annoying though.

You're comparing apples to oranges here. Yes, everything you listed is an Intel x86 part, but the Z3735F is the CPU in my Windows 8 tablet, which has a 4W "SDP" (scenario design power).

The P8400 has a TDP of 25W, or about 6 times the heat dissipation of the Z series atom. So of course the Core 2 can beat an Atom, it's in a completely different category of processor.

If you are going to compare apples to apples, pick the i5 2410M. It's not a new part, but the TDP is comparable to the P8400, and the target market (12.5-15" laptops) is the same.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2410M+...

Here you can see that the newer laptop-class CPUs out perform the Core 2 by a factor of 2. Couple this with much better integrated graphics, and newer memory (4GB DDR2 SODIMMs exist but compatibility is spotty and they're quite expensive) and it's not really a contest anymore, the newer CPU/chipset provide better performance and will give you longer battery life.

I am not going to claim I am one of those people who needs a powerful processor in my laptop, because 90% of what I do is login to remote servers who do the work much faster than my laptop ever could. But, I do enjoy getting 5-8 hours of battery life thanks to my newer processor sipping electrons when idle, which cannot be said for Core 2 era systems.

I know there are more powerful CPUs available; the point is whether that CPU is sufficient for most of the things you're likely to use this laptop for. Is your Win8 tablet too slow, or does it do what you want with good performance?

For what it's worth, I couldn't find any information on the battery in these things. I understand these are second hand, but is the old battery replaced? For that matter, what is the quality of second-hand X200's anyways?

I would wonder whether or not the keyboard is worn down, or if the screens are still in good condition. Has anyone bought one of these that can discuss this?

True, but for a lot of programming work its sufficient and relatively cheap.

I confirm. I had a machine similar to that one up to 18 month ago. It was fast enough to develop web applications (Rails, JavaScript). The only problem was the RAM limit at 4 GB. I replaced it with a ZBook 15 with 16 GB RAM. It's faster, so doing the same kind of work becomes more convenient, but the main advantage is not to have to close some programs to start another one. That's particularly handy when working with virtual machines or multiple browsers.