Recommend a Laptop / Notebook (v. $800 / 14" 16:10 screen)

S

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
My Dad is looking to get a notebook, but his requirements have me somewhat stumped. With an ~$800 budget and a preference for a 14" 16:10 notebook (15.6" 16:9 as a second choice) what would you folks recommend? CPU isn't that critical. I suppose it should have at least 4GB of RAM and have an internal optical drive (DVD burner).
 
Stereodude said:
That has a 16:9 screen. My Dad only wants a 16:10 screen in a 14" system. I'm exactly not sure I understand his reasoning, but that's his preference.
Click to expand...

The shorter and shorter screens are a ripoff for doing work. The image area is smaller and loss of vertical pixels sucks. I assume he does not need 16:90 to play videos all day? :) :bsmurf:
 
LunarMist said:
The shorter and shorter screens are a ripoff for doing work. The image area is smaller and loss of vertical pixels sucks. I assume he does not need 16:90 to play videos all day? :) :bsmurf:
Click to expand...
Yeah, but he's worried about the vertical height in inches, not the number of pixels on the screen.
 
The Lenovo T410 looks like it might be the right play since it has a 16:10 screen, but it's over budget. :(
 
On a somewhat related note, why aren't high resolution screens widely offered anymore? Both of my Dell's have 15.4" 1680x1050 screens. When I bought the older one the 1920x1200 15.4" screen was even an option. Now you're lucky to get a 1366x768 screen at 15.6".
 
Stereodude said:
Yeah, but he's worried about the vertical height in inches, not the number of pixels on the screen.
Click to expand...

That is the issue. For example, in a 14.1" diagonal dipslay, the 16:9 is 0.56" (7.5%) shorter and 0.33" (2.8%) wider. Overall the display has 5% less area. Typically the pixel pitch is about 0.96x, so that a 16:10 1280x800 LCD is replaced by a 16:9 1366x768 LCD. :@:
 
I think the main reason high resolution notebook screens are hard to come by is that baby boomers don't like wearing their reading glasses.
 
I wish LCDs could display multiple resolutions clearly. Maybe someday.:smile:
 
ddrueding said:
They can. An LCD screen can display any resolution that divides evenly into it's native res ;)
Click to expand...

You might find a huge clunker of a gaming laptop that has a 1200x1920 display, but the vast majority are not large enough to be divisible by two. :bravo:
 
LunarMist said:
I wish LCDs could display multiple resolutions clearly. Maybe someday.:smile:
Click to expand...
That's not gonna happen unless they end up with some super duper high resolution. With a little more clever GUI manipulation you wouldn't need to drive them at any resolution other than the native. You can render fonts and graphics at any pixel size you want, so there's really no reason to need to change the resolution being sent to the panel in order to make things larger.
 
time said:
Fixed or progressive focal length?

How much different is the Add when compared to your reading glasses?

TIA.
Click to expand...

Fixed. I tryed the progessive lenses and the field of view is very narrow, especially up close.
Actually, I bought the computer glasses at Wal Mart. Cheap pair of 'reading' glasses. They are +1.25 or +1.50 (the numbers are worn off). I can see and read the entire screen from the entire lense area.
My street glasses are triple-focal. The center lense works for the computer too, but again it is a narrow field of view.
I don't know for sure, but I think my readers are stronger than my computer glasses.
 
I too have computer glasses. Progressive doesn't work at all for the specific application. Far to narrow of a field. Reading glasses are designed for closer work than a monitor but even beyond that each eye will have a different prescription and Walmart reading glasses won't. The real solution is to ask for them from your optometrist and get a prescription for them. They are designed so that the only thing in perfect focus is is exactly 21 inches away. You then align the chair and monitor and in the long run you will naturally adapt at keeping your body at the correct distance to see properly.

I keep the glasses attached to a lanyard that then hangs off the monitor when I'm not there. It helps distinguish between my normal progressive glasses and the computer glasses.

I think next time I get glasses, I'm going to try getting bifocals for my computer glasses, so I can see distance when I look up and away from the screen. At least my eyes have enough flexibility to be able to read and see the keyboard using the computer glasses even though they are not the perfect distance. Adding the bifocal capability hopefully will mean the basic entire range should be covered.

I would encourage anyone here that works on a screen all day and needs glasses to get proper computer glasses. It makes a worlds of difference.
 
So if I understand you correctly, progressives give you less height than bifocals? I thought they were supposed to be a replacement for bi and tri-focals?
 
Reading glasses are only the start. I'm told that everyone, if they live long enough, eventually gets cataracts and end up needing a lens replacement. Just the normal aging process that we all get to look forward towards.

Live long and prosper.
 
time said:
So if I understand you correctly, progressives give you less height than bifocals? I thought they were supposed to be a replacement for bi and tri-focals?
Click to expand...

Progressive works fine for normal use. For a monitor, not so much. It is a question that only a small portion of the glass is allocated for computer/reading. You really want more than just a single icon on the screen in focus at one time.
 
We really are getting a ways away from recommending a specific laptop. Perhaps glasses are worthy of a separate thread.
 
Stereodude, this thread has gone dead because there aren't any new 16:10 displays. Only legacy laptops have them, and by definition they are obsolete and hard to find.

Boy, do I sympathize with your Dad, but that's the way it is.

The only option left is an iPad (16:12).

Seriously though, I haven't heard of anything better than a 16:9 SL510.
 
time said:
Only legacy laptops have them, and by definition they are obsolete and hard to find.
Click to expand...
Well, the Lenovo T410 is new / non legacy model and has a 16:10 14" screen. I'm waiting for Lenovo to run a promo code that applies to them. That should get it just within his budget. Unfortunately the current code only give 20% off Lenovo ThinkPad X, W, and Tablet Series Laptops. :(
 
The Dell Latitude E6410, E5410, & E5400 all have a 14.1" 16:10 screen as well. You can get a decently equipped E5400 for under $800 (before tax).
 
So, between the Dell E6410, E5400, E5410, Lenovo T410, & HP DV4/DV4T which one is recommended?

The Lenovo and Dell are business class machines that offer a higher resolution screen whereas the HP isn't business class and has no such option. Of course the Dell and Lenovo are also more expensive too.

And, are the Core i3/i5/i7 options better than the Core 2 Duo for someone who's not a power user? Do they offer better battery life?
 
The Squaretrade study is based on machines that are sold on Ebay. So we're talking about lease-returned business machines that are probably a few years old being compared to brand new systems, without any weighting or identification between business and consumer models, new or used or weighting based on size of any particular sample.

In other words, that study smells like bullshit to me. Especially when it suggests that Acer notebooks are more reliable generally than any other brand.
 
Mercutio said:
The Squaretrade study is based on machines that are sold on Ebay. So we're talking about lease-returned business machines that are probably a few years old being compared to brand new systems, without any weighting or identification between business and consumer models, new or used or weighting based on size of any particular sample.

In other words, that study smells like bullshit to me. Especially when it suggests that Acer notebooks are more reliable generally than any other brand.
Click to expand...

I quote the appendix:

"SquareTrade randomly selected over 30,000 laptop and netbook computers for this analysis. We included only items that were purchased brand new (i.e. not refurbished or used)."

So where did you get the idea that it was using ebay/refurbished machines?
 
Mercutio said:
In other words, that study smells like bullshit to me. Especially when it suggests that Acer notebooks are more reliable generally than any other brand.
Click to expand...

You misread it, the study suggests Acer notebooks are less reliable than any other brand except Gateway or HP. Not that hard for me to believe.

For me, they lose credibility with their rankings of Apple, Dell and Lenovo. It's also stupid to rate Dell this way because they sell two different ranges of laptops that - last time I looked - are made by two completely separate manufacturers.

Still, I can't disprove their results.
 
So the HP is the cheapest (DV4-2160US), the Dell is in the middle (E5410), and the Lenovo (T410) is the most expensive when I tried to configure them equivalently.
 
Stereodude said:
So, between the Dell E6410, E5400, E5410, Lenovo T410, & HP DV4/DV4T which one is recommended?
Click to expand...

For starters, I'm going to assume you don't hate your Dad enough to expose him to HP support.

When I tried to configure the Dell and Lenovo options, they easily blew your $800 budget.

LaptopMag seemed to like the Lenovo T410 a lot, and support is good.

And, are the Core i3/i5/i7 options better than the Core 2 Duo for someone who's not a power user? Do they offer better battery life?
Click to expand...

The specs I saw classified the Core 2 as 25W and Core 5/7 as 35W. So no, they don't offer better battery life - more likely the other way around.

Also, I don't believe an i3 is any faster than a Core 2.
 
:confused: I was easily able to get the E5400 & E5410 under $800 total decently equipped (with the standard 1 year warranty, Win 7 HP, buying the 4GB of RAM from Newegg instead).

Doesn't the Core i3/i5/i7 do more work per MHz yielding slightly better battery life, or at least no worse despite the higher TDP?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top