Weekend Open Forum: What's your ideal laptop size?

Scott8090 said:
I would say 15-16 inch for portibilty as well as any any below gaming requirements. While 15 to 17 for gaming would be fine.

IMO netbooks ruined the market. 1 gig memory with weak processors while running windows is asking for trouble. Haven't had any personal hands on experiance with netbooks but windows 7 running on those specs is a underpowered PC. Beyond that, introducing net books only allowed the market to be even more confusing and costly for the end user.
11,12,13,14 inch laptops became far more common while costing the end user vastly larger sums of cash. Its not uncommon to see laptops of all sizes with vastly different price tags. Price tags that generally don't add up to the specs of the Laptop.
Click to expand...

Ruined it? They made it so much more interesting. Since netbooks (which because of their weak performance were not that interesting, true) entered the market several things happened: Cheap ultraportables followed soon after (with decent performance) AND batterylife improved dramaticly.

Besides that, why would these lead to higher prices for the end user? You can pick up an E-350 11.6" laptop, which is more then enough for any normal use, starting at €380 over here. How is that expensive?

And finally: Of course there are different price tags for differnt sizes. It wouldn't make sense if it was the same. Except for the screen, going smaller is more expensive. You can not put a high-end graphics card in a small laptop.

My brother, parents and I are ALL very happy with our 11.6" laptops with SU4100 or E-350, which are more then enough for every normal load. Besides using a normal pc of course. I wouldn't want to work on such a small screen for a whole day.
 
Im using a 15" Mackbook Pro. Ive used a 17" Macbook Pro and didnt like the bulk of it. 17" isnt portable enough for me to use it since i carry my laptop around constantly.
 
Sounds like a question girls ask when out on the town together. It's so subjective . . . I've been able to do more with a 14" XPS than most users with the most powerful towers and/or laptops available. It's really knowing which programs to use, when, why, and how to accomplish productivity tasks.
 
Actually, if you get the right hardware, you can upgrade a laptop. I am using a 17.3 inch ASUS G73JH-RBBOX Republic of Gamers Laptop and \i love it. The Radeon 5870 video card is discrete, so it is totally upgradeable if I chose to do so. It already has 8 Gig if DDR3 RAM and two 500 Gig HDD's, which are also upgradeable. It all comes down to you get what you pay for. I chose a gaming laptop with a future. I paid more, but it'll last me for a number of years.

Chuck
 
captaincranky said:
I'm kinda thinkin' that "size doesn't matter", as much as the panel technology.

I have a 15.6" Toshiba Satellite, ($300.00), and the TN panel just plain sucks. My experience has been, the smaller you make a TN panel, the more acute the viewing angle issue becomes. That said, I suppose 15.6 is my ideal size, since the viewing angle issue is bad, and could get worse if I picked a smaller lappy.

The one thing I always say nice about Apple, (and it is absolutely the ONLY thing I say nice about Apple), is that they use IPS panels in everything.

But, when I realized that the insurance policy on a Macbook Pro, would be as much as I paid for my Toshiba, I decided to tough out the TN issue.

I actually don't need a laptop anyway, so it's all good. :)
Click to expand...

Apple uses IPS panels in everything, but they use glossy screens instead of matte ones. On a laptop a glossy screen is a nightmare, it smudges easier and it reflects like a mirror when you use the laptop outside. Still love the macbook pro though.
 
i like my 15.4' acer laptop just the right size for portability.

but the 17" are nicer for playing games on, they just don't have the battery life i like.
 
Phate13 said:
Scott8090 said:
I would say 15-16 inch for portibilty as well as any any below gaming requirements. While 15 to 17 for gaming would be fine.

IMO netbooks ruined the market. 1 gig memory with weak processors while running windows is asking for trouble. Haven't had any personal hands on experiance with netbooks but windows 7 running on those specs is a underpowered PC. Beyond that, introducing net books only allowed the market to be even more confusing and costly for the end user.
11,12,13,14 inch laptops became far more common while costing the end user vastly larger sums of cash. Its not uncommon to see laptops of all sizes with vastly different price tags. Price tags that generally don't add up to the specs of the Laptop.
Click to expand...

Ruined it? They made it so much more interesting. Since netbooks (which because of their weak performance were not that interesting, true) entered the market several things happened: Cheap ultraportables followed soon after (with decent performance) AND batterylife improved dramaticly.

Besides that, why would these lead to higher prices for the end user? You can pick up an E-350 11.6" laptop, which is more then enough for any normal use, starting at €380 over here. How is that expensive?

And finally: Of course there are different price tags for differnt sizes. It wouldn't make sense if it was the same. Except for the screen, going smaller is more expensive. You can not put a high-end graphics card in a small laptop.

My brother, parents and I are ALL very happy with our 11.6" laptops with SU4100 or E-350, which are more then enough for every normal load. Besides using a normal pc of course. I wouldn't want to work on such a small screen for a whole day.
Click to expand...

Its not that there isn't enough power in "all" the laptops that have been released. Its the matter that the price tags put on laptops of similar specs are all vastly different. Example: Three laptops with roughly the same specs beside each other. You could have anywhere from 50 dollars difference to 500 dollars difference. That is the effects that net books introduction brought to the market. Vastly inconsistent pricing.

The Screen size directly effects the resolution of a Personal Computer. Truthfully 1024 x 768 is the bar min for the internet let along running applications smoothly with out major hick-ups. 1280 x 768 seems more where technology is going sooner than later. introducing Lower screen sizes+lower memory counts dampens the market not help the growth of the market. I am speaking with the end user in mind. Companies get increased profits due to individuals needs to upgrade as technology advances. Put your customers right on the border of non effective technology, It hurts the customer but provides more cash flow for the company. Do this with out the customer realizing it, you make big dollars. Tablets anyone? Netbooks anyone? And a bunch of the laptops released less than 15 inches.
 
Princeton said:
captaincranky said:
I'm kinda thinkin' that "size doesn't matter", as much as the panel technology.

I have a 15.6" Toshiba Satellite, ($300.00), and the TN panel just plain sucks. My experience has been, the smaller you make a TN panel, the more acute the viewing angle issue becomes. That said, I suppose 15.6 is my ideal size, since the viewing angle issue is bad, and could get worse if I picked a smaller lappy.

The one thing I always say nice about Apple, (and it is absolutely the ONLY thing I say nice about Apple), is that they use IPS panels in everything.

But, when I realized that the insurance policy on a Macbook Pro, would be as much as I paid for my Toshiba, I decided to tough out the TN issue.

I actually don't need a laptop anyway, so it's all good. :)
Click to expand...

Apple uses IPS panels in everything, but they use glossy screens instead of matte ones. On a laptop a glossy screen is a nightmare, it smudges easier and it reflects like a mirror when you use the laptop outside. Still love the macbook pro though.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised, I am not certain but Don't they use Samsung or one of the other major providers for IPS panels? If they did use Samsung it would highly explain any sort of glare lol.
 
Scott8090 said:
I wouldn't be surprised, I am not certain but Don't they use Samsung or one of the other major providers for IPS panels? If they did use Samsung it would highly explain any sort of glare lol.
Click to expand...
The glossy panels are a cheap trick to gain color saturation and contrast. This works the same in photographic papers. A glossy surface will give you jet black and maximum contrast, while a matte surface peaks at a dark battleship gray, with range of color depth compromised as well.

So, Apple knows that the glossy surface is a nuisance in use, but it has that, "why the colors jump right off the screen", look in the store, and that's what they're banking on to get it out the door.

As to your observation on Samsung, I have a 22" TN Samsung I bought because it pivots, don't use it, then replaced it with an IPS Dell. The Samsung is a turd that I never managed to get any sort of decent calibration out of. It heavily favors green, which is the worst situation imaginable for getting any decent skin tone.

Oddly, I have a 5 year old 22" Westinghouse, that reproduces skin tones way better than the Samsung. Go figure.

I think that LG makes a lot of the current crop of IPS panels also. The last high end Samsungs I saw were C-PVA.

To answer your original query, yes Apple uses suppliers, they don't grow their own. In fact recently, they were pulling some shady commodity dealings with panels, trying to control availability by over paying for them.

Here are 2 stories about this: https://www.techspot.com/news/42979...e-hikes-to-secure-supply-of-touch-panels.html and https://www.techspot.com/news/42466...panel-capacity-hurting-supply-for-others.html
 
captaincranky said:
The glossy panels are a cheap trick to gain color saturation and contrast. This works the same in photographic papers. A glossy surface will give you jet black and maximum contrast, while a matte surface peaks at a dark battleship gray, with range of color depth compromised as well.

So, Apple knows that the glossy surface is a nuisance in use, but it has that, "why the colors jump right off the screen", look in the store, and that's what they're banking on to get it out the door.

As to your observation on Samsung, I have a 22" TN Samsung I bought because it pivots, don't use it, then replaced it with an IPS Dell. The Samsung is a turd that I never managed to get any sort of decent calibration out of. It heavily favors green, which is the worst situation imaginable for getting any decent skin tone.

Oddly, I have a 5 year old 22" Westinghouse, that reproduces skin tones way better than the Samsung. Go figure.

I think that LG makes a lot of the current crop of IPS panels also. The last high end Samsungs I saw were C-PVA.

To answer your original query, yes Apple uses suppliers, they don't grow their own. In fact recently, they were pulling some shady commodity dealings with panels, trying to control availability by over paying for them.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the interesting information. Just replied back to another person on another article. Some times I over stretch on matters(Only human lol) so its nice to have views and opinions from others. I'm not very familiar with the core details concerning Displays to be honest. Its only of those subjects that went to the back of the list due to tones of others filling the spot. Stretching my knowledge to all aspects of computers makes keeping up with half of the stuff well time consuming. One of these days I'll probably research more into it. Will probably be when I get a new monitor :D

I remember Techspot talking about that apply attempting to buy out a large portion of the lcd displays. No sure if they ever accomplished it though.
 
"17' is my favorite, any smaller size and you should just buy a tablet."
...and be handicapped by not having a keyboard? No thanks. 15.6' is perfect for me.
 
Kibaruk said:
11.6" and I'm in love, its name is M11x.
Click to expand...

I have its big sister - the m15x. How do you like the resolution on the m11x? I was concerned about the 1333x768 not being "sharp" enough for me. I got the 1920x1080 option on my 15x and things are nice and crispy small.

It's a bit heavier than I would like, but it's still reasonably portable.
 
scott8090 said:
Phate13 said:
Scott8090 said:
I would say 15-16 inch for portibilty as well as any any below gaming requirements. While 15 to 17 for gaming would be fine.

IMO netbooks ruined the market. 1 gig memory with weak processors while running windows is asking for trouble. Haven't had any personal hands on experiance with netbooks but windows 7 running on those specs is a underpowered PC. Beyond that, introducing net books only allowed the market to be even more confusing and costly for the end user.
11,12,13,14 inch laptops became far more common while costing the end user vastly larger sums of cash. Its not uncommon to see laptops of all sizes with vastly different price tags. Price tags that generally don't add up to the specs of the Laptop.
Click to expand...

Ruined it? They made it so much more interesting. Since netbooks (which because of their weak performance were not that interesting, true) entered the market several things happened: Cheap ultraportables followed soon after (with decent performance) AND batterylife improved dramaticly.

Besides that, why would these lead to higher prices for the end user? You can pick up an E-350 11.6" laptop, which is more then enough for any normal use, starting at €380 over here. How is that expensive?

And finally: Of course there are different price tags for differnt sizes. It wouldn't make sense if it was the same. Except for the screen, going smaller is more expensive. You can not put a high-end graphics card in a small laptop.

My brother, parents and I are ALL very happy with our 11.6" laptops with SU4100 or E-350, which are more then enough for every normal load. Besides using a normal pc of course. I wouldn't want to work on such a small screen for a whole day.
Click to expand...

Its not that there isn't enough power in "all" the laptops that have been released. Its the matter that the price tags put on laptops of similar specs are all vastly different. Example: Three laptops with roughly the same specs beside each other. You could have anywhere from 50 dollars difference to 500 dollars difference. That is the effects that net books introduction brought to the market. Vastly inconsistent pricing.

The Screen size directly effects the resolution of a Personal Computer. Truthfully 1024 x 768 is the bar min for the internet let along running applications smoothly with out major hick-ups. 1280 x 768 seems more where technology is going sooner than later. introducing Lower screen sizes+lower memory counts dampens the market not help the growth of the market. I am speaking with the end user in mind. Companies get increased profits due to individuals needs to upgrade as technology advances. Put your customers right on the border of non effective technology, It hurts the customer but provides more cash flow for the company. Do this with out the customer realizing it, you make big dollars. Tablets anyone? Netbooks anyone? And a bunch of the laptops released less than 15 inches.
Click to expand...

First of all, what do the inconsistent pricing have to do with screen size? There have always been quite big differences in pricing between different vendors. Besides that, the specs you see don't say everything. A bussiness laptop, with a beter housing and better warranty will cost more. And some fancy gadgets or a famous brand (or name) will do the same thing. That's how the market works. The relation with netbooks... I don't see it. (In my opinion, if you want to blame anyone for different prices for the same specs, blame Apple.)

Then, yes, screen resolution is what counts. But on all the laptops I mentioned, the resolution is 1366*768. And the demand (and reaction to that demand, creating these laptops), would never have been there without the netbook. And that resolution is plenty for a small notebook. If there's any resolution "the industry is going", then it's 1366*768. Sadly enough even 15.6" laptops started using that resolution. Before the whole HD hype, you would find slightly higher resolutions for that size. And next to that, 2GB is more then enough.

The issue that is to your concern is that you don't like small, weak, laptops like a 7", Atom, 1GB one, and you blame companies for ripping people of with that? What kind of response is that? Your argument why the companies would even do it, doesn't even make sens. Most of the vendors even lowered they're supply of netbooks because they hardly make any profit on them. Because they are so cheap. Why are you blaming the consumer when they buy such a 7" netbook costing barely anything, expecting the performance of a decent pc? That's like buying a scooter and expeting porsche-like performance. If you, as consumer, just would test that netbook for half a minute in a store, then you would notice how constricted it's usage really is. And finally it's hardly the manufacturer you should blame, if you buy your stuff in a computerstore where they lie to people about the performance of a pc. Well, then I would look out for an other store.
 
Phate13 said:
First of all, what do the inconsistent pricing have to do with screen size? There have always been quite big differences in pricing between different vendors. Besides that, the specs you see don't say everything. A bussiness laptop, with a beter housing and better warranty will cost more. And some fancy gadgets or a famous brand (or name) will do the same thing. That's how the market works. The relation with netbooks... I don't see it. (In my opinion, if you want to blame anyone for different prices for the same specs, blame Apple.)

Then, yes, screen resolution is what counts. But on all the laptops I mentioned, the resolution is 1366*768. And the demand (and reaction to that demand, creating these laptops), would never have been there without the netbook. And that resolution is plenty for a small notebook. If there's any resolution "the industry is going", then it's 1366*768. Sadly enough even 15.6" laptops started using that resolution. Before the whole HD hype, you would find slightly higher resolutions for that size. And next to that, 2GB is more then enough.

The issue that is to your concern is that you don't like small, weak, laptops like a 7", Atom, 1GB one, and you blame companies for ripping people of with that? What kind of response is that? Your argument why the companies would even do it, doesn't even make sens. Most of the vendors even lowered they're supply of netbooks because they hardly make any profit on them. Because they are so cheap. Why are you blaming the consumer when they buy such a 7" netbook costing barely anything, expecting the performance of a decent pc? That's like buying a scooter and expeting porsche-like performance. If you, as consumer, just would test that netbook for half a minute in a store, then you would notice how constricted it's usage really is. And finally it's hardly the manufacturer you should blame, if you buy your stuff in a computerstore where they lie to people about the performance of a pc. Well, then I would look out for an other store.
Click to expand...

Seems we both missed some of the logic in our comments.

When I spoke about the resolution being 1280x768, I meant that was becoming the "bare min" resolution to comfortably run windows on. A typo on my part concerning that matter. Screen size matters IMO because the Vastly inconsistent pricing was/has been effected by it.

Never said there hasn't been Vastly Inconsistent Pricing from brand to brand, style to style, purpose to purpose, casing to casing what ever you want to call it all. The Gap this Vastly Inconsistent pricing ranges from has increased due to the vast amount of options introduced into the market. Some hit it off well some didn't but all influenced the Change in the Gap of the inconsistent pricing.

I never stated I didn't like weaker systems...I stated:
Its not that there isn't enough power in "all" the laptops that have been released.

There is a bare min that's common knowledge of what "runs" windows "well" and what is the "bare min" that should even be bothered putting in a computer.
Your saying that a company releasing a laptop with amd turion 1.4 ghz dual core +1 gig memory+windows vista wasn't ripping the customer off? Your putting to much on the end user. The companies made the product to sell it. Part of the blame is the customers and part of the blame is the companies. That's like saying all the net books released companies made to just to say oh well we messed up...

quote:
The issue that is to your concern is that you don't like small, weak, laptops like a 7", Atom, 1GB one, and you blame companies for ripping people of with that? What kind of response is that?

Boils Down to I am looking at this in a very broad way and seems we both are losing each other on this matter =/.

PS: Not making assumptions helps in regards to discussions :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

midian182
Intel is finally investigating reports of high-end 13th/14th-gen CPUs causing game crashes
2
Replies
34
Views
715
Squid Surprise
Squid Surprise
Daniel Sims
New iPad Pro and iPad Air models now expected to launch on May
Replies
2
Views
171
Watzupken
W
Shawn Knight
Homemade laptop packs mini-ITX desktop motherboard, dual displays, and a built-in battery
Replies
6
Views
966
ZedRM
ZedRM

Latest posts

Back