$2500 to spend on a notebook - recommendations?

[flot]

Guys, I have $2000-$2500 to spend on a notebook for work. Appreciate any suggestions of specific models. Leaning towards dell/ibm/toshiba but open to suggestions.

Here are my basic requirements:

15" screen, not much bigger, not much smaller
Durable
Reasonably lightweight (I will carry this back and forth from work to home)
2 gigs RAM
Long battery life - 3 hours min, 4+ preferred.
I **DEFINITELY** prefer a laptop with an eraser-head mouse pointer

I don't really care about all-out performance, hardly care at all about video performance, just want a good all around general use laptop that will spend 90% of its time for reading email and web pages. The 2 gigs of ram is just so I can run VMWare on it from time to time.

Suggestions?

 

[AmigaMan]

<insert standard Lenovo T60 response here>
</thread>

 

[flot]

Originally posted by: AmigaMan
<insert standard Lenovo T60 response here>
</thread>

Sorry, I admit - this is actually the first time I've ventured into this forum for a long time. Can someone give me the short version of why I want a T60p? LOL

(and what's the "p" for? how is it different than the T60?)

 

[Commodus]

The short version is that Lenovo's ThinkPads have a reputation for quality, not just playing the specs game (see Dell for an example of the latter). They're thin, light, and well-made.

And of course, the key here is that ThinkPads are really the only laptops with those eraser-head mouse pointers. IBM (and thus Lenovo) was the pioneer of that device.

Just be sure to choose the right model; you might want to choose "let me build it" on the T-series page to make sure you're getting the system you really want.

 

[bigrash]

I highly recommend a ibm/lenovo thinkpad too. i have the t42 for work and it's an awesome laptop

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Commodus
The short version is that Lenovo's ThinkPads have a reputation for quality, not just playing the specs game (see Dell for an example of the latter). They're thin, light, and well-made.

And of course, the key here is that ThinkPads are really the only laptops with those eraser-head mouse pointers. IBM (and thus Lenovo) was the pioneer of that device.

Just be sure to choose the right model; you might want to choose "let me build it" on the T-series page to make sure you're getting the system you really want.

In general I agree, but Thinkpads are not the only ones to have that pointing device. I'm typing this on my work laptop, an HP nc6000, which has one.

 

[fbrdphreak]

In your price range, it would be stupid not to get a Thinkpad. The HP's are nice, I love HP notebooks, but Thinkpads are better. Dell's Latitudes are okay, I should have a look at the new models soon, but Thinkpads are better. I hate to be so one-sided about it, but its the truth. Warranty service is great, even with the "basic" depot service. Build quality is awesome.

I just reviewed a 15" T60:
http://www.laptoplogic.com/reviews/detail.php?id=112

The p-model is a bit of a waste if you don't need the upgraded graphics. I'd just get a T60, 2GHz CPU is a good price for your budget, X1300 or X1400, get the IBM wifi card, not the Intel, and the hard drive of choice. Get the 9-cell battery of course. I'd just add your own RAM, much cheaper that way. 2GB can probly be had for around $200. Also, you could get a single 2GB module for now (I believe Crucial offers them) and have a single slot for a 1GB module later.

Lastly, see if any of these discounts can help you out:
http://www.laptoplogic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2101

 

[flot]

Thanks for the comments guys. The T60 does look pretty solid - although I admit I was hoping for something a little more glamourous for $2500.

As for purchasing I'd probably have to go through CDW - they have a nicely loaded $2499 model that includes the 15" screen and evdo card.

I'm a bit torn on the evdo... since it is a work machine (they're paying) it might be very nice to have - the $15 a day plan, although I read a lot of bashing of it, is perfect for when you're on the road, just add it to your expense report. Hell that's usually the going rate in a hotel room these days anyway. BUT I just don't know if it's worth adding to the laptop generally speaking.

 

[ValuedCustomer]

Originally posted by: flot
Thanks for the comments guys. The T60 does look pretty solid - although I admit I was hoping for something a little more glamourous for $2500.

my freind, nothing is more glamorous than magnesium-composite goodness.

 

[Ranulf]

I'd also look at the new lattitude line from Dell (D620 or D820). The new updates aren't bad at all. My problem with IBM/Lenovo has always been that while generally high quality built, their specs and options are horrible and far overpriced.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: Ranulf
My problem with IBM/Lenovo has always been that while generally high quality built, their specs and options are horrible and far overpriced.

Expensive, yes. But what options are you missing? Full range of CPU, HDD, & RAM? Check. 8x Dual Layer DVDRW? Check. Industry leading security? Check. Integrated WWAN? Check. It doesn't have Firewire, that's it.

OP, get a 14" T60 SXGA+ and you'll have the sexiest machine on the block. The 15"-ers are a bit bloated IMO, but still sweet machines.

 

[AzNPinkTuv]

i just bought one of them sony vaios with the dual core and all.. 1799 at JR, i believe it was the Sony VAIO® SZ140PD Notebook
VGN-SZ140PD

 

[fbrdphreak]

BTW, Lenovo is releasing the dual core Z-series in mid-May; i.e. 14 or 15.4" widescreen notebooks with optional titanium cover. More "stylish" I guess

 

[Commodus]

Originally posted by: Ranulf
I'd also look at the new lattitude line from Dell (D620 or D820). The new updates aren't bad at all. My problem with IBM/Lenovo has always been that while generally high quality built, their specs and options are horrible and far overpriced.

This is the kind of mind Dell is pandering to - "but for that money, I could get..."

Sometimes it's more than just the performance of the system that affects the price. Build materials, software, and support play into the cost as well. I want my system to be reliable; I want it to have good customer support. Those two aspects are often cast into doubt with Dell. I don't want to worry about a cheap case shattering in a short drop; I don't want to spend 2 hours on the phone trying to get the company to live up to its warranty.

 

[simms]

FVCK yea. IBM all the way. I had a bad motherboard, they got my replacement in TWO HOURS and had someone come to my SCHOOL the NEXT MORNING to fix it.

 

[Marmion]

If its being paid by your work, go for the IBM
No reason to even think about Dell if you're not paying for it, IBM is far superior, and IBM might just be my next laptop purchase (still around a year away though )

 

[halfadder]

I'll recommend what most of my department bought last month: Apple MacBookPro.

If you're in education (student, faculty, staff, or parent of a student) or if your office is government (city, county, state, federal) you can get decent discounts. Otherwise the best way to buy Apple at a discount is with coupons or rebates through Amazon.com.

Anyway... USA Edu/Gov price direct from store.apple.com is about $2500 for a 2.0 GHz IntelCoreDuo, 1440x900 15.4", 2 GB 667MHz mem, 100 GB HD, ATI X1600 256 MB, slot-load DVD+/-RW, remote control, backlit keyboard, built-in webcam, magnetic power connector, optical audio I/O, 60 watthour battery, Dual-Link 2560x1600 DVI output, iLife 06 software bundle, QuickBooksPro 2006. Drop back down to 1 GB of RAM and it's about $250 less. There is also a $1799 model with 1.83 GHz Core Duo, 512 MB, and 80 GB for those who want to buy the extra fram from Crucial.

We used BootCamp to install WinXP on a second partition. But aside from games, dual boot doesn't get used much. The Parallels virual machine (similar to VMware) is just as fast as dual booting for CPU/RAM bound tasks thanks to the awesome Intel VT-x virtulization extensions. I have two Parallels VMs on my machine already, one WinXP and one Fedora Linux.

MacBookPro isn't perfect, but it's a pretty sweet machine. It's as thin (1") and light (5.6 lbs) as any of the other thin and light fully featured dual core, GPU, full size batter, optical drive, 15" notebooks out there. And it's made of brushed aluminum. Sexy!

 

[halfadder]

Whoops, didn't see your request for an IBM eraser head mouse pointer.

Better get a Lenovo. Or see if Sager has the eraser head as an option.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: halfadder
I'll recommend what most of my department bought last month: Apple MacBookPro.

If you're in education (student, faculty, staff, or parent of a student) or if your office is government (city, county, state, federal) you can get decent discounts. Otherwise the best way to buy Apple at a discount is with coupons or rebates through Amazon.com.

Anyway... USA Edu/Gov price direct from store.apple.com is about $2500 for a 2.0 GHz IntelCoreDuo, 1440x900 15.4", 2 GB 667MHz mem, 100 GB HD, ATI X1600 256 MB, slot-load DVD+/-RW, remote control, backlit keyboard, built-in webcam, magnetic power connector, optical audio I/O, 60 watthour battery, Dual-Link 2560x1600 DVI output, iLife 06 software bundle, QuickBooksPro 2006. Drop back down to 1 GB of RAM and it's about $250 less. There is also a $1799 model with 1.83 GHz Core Duo, 512 MB, and 80 GB for those who want to buy the extra fram from Crucial.

We used BootCamp to install WinXP on a second partition. But aside from games, dual boot doesn't get used much. The Parallels virual machine (similar to VMware) is just as fast as dual booting for CPU/RAM bound tasks thanks to the awesome Intel VT-x virtulization extensions. I have two Parallels VMs on my machine already, one WinXP and one Fedora Linux.

MacBookPro isn't perfect, but it's a pretty sweet machine. It's as thin (1") and light (5.6 lbs) as any of the other thin and light fully featured dual core, GPU, full size batter, optical drive, 15" notebooks out there. And it's made of brushed aluminum. Sexy!

I commend any PC user who buys a Mac, I honestly do; Microsoft needs to have some of their market presence taken away. I still consider them to be a monopoly.

One reason I still don't think Macs are the best choice for most people is that in order to run Windows programs, you still have to buy a Windows OS even with dual-boot. For people that need to use Windows programs for work or other things, this makes it a no-go. That's my situation (and I'm not a gamer). In addition, I worry just as much about what would happen if I get heavily invested in Macintosh software and make it my primary OS. That locks me into Apple, where I have no choice in OS and very little in hardware. Right now I have choice in hardware, which silly as it seems is important to me. Even though I don't like Microsoft as a company and hate their dominance, I view purchasing a Windows license for a new machine as a tax I must pay in order not to be locked into a single vendor.

I still wish Apple would release Mac OS for PCs. It would make me more likely to buy Apple hardware (besides making them a mint). In their own way, they are just as monopolistic a company as Microsoft, except in their grand vision they own the bulk of the world's hardware and OS business. Decoupling the two just doesn't make any sense to them, after many years.

I have seen and handled two of the new MacBooks in person. Pretty nice gear. Especially for someone who just needs a portable personal computing device and is not heavily invested in software, such as a student, it could make an awesome choice.

AmigaMan talks about using his new MacBook to do his work in Ubuntu. For someone like that, it makes really great sense as well, as much as any PC laptop.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: halfadder
I'll recommend what most of my department bought last month: Apple MacBookPro.

If you're in education (student, faculty, staff, or parent of a student) or if your office is government (city, county, state, federal) you can get decent discounts. Otherwise the best way to buy Apple at a discount is with coupons or rebates through Amazon.com.

Anyway... USA Edu/Gov price direct from store.apple.com is about $2500 for a 2.0 GHz IntelCoreDuo, 1440x900 15.4", 2 GB 667MHz mem, 100 GB HD, ATI X1600 256 MB, slot-load DVD+/-RW, remote control, backlit keyboard, built-in webcam, magnetic power connector, optical audio I/O, 60 watthour battery, Dual-Link 2560x1600 DVI output, iLife 06 software bundle, QuickBooksPro 2006. Drop back down to 1 GB of RAM and it's about $250 less. There is also a $1799 model with 1.83 GHz Core Duo, 512 MB, and 80 GB for those who want to buy the extra fram from Crucial.

We used BootCamp to install WinXP on a second partition. But aside from games, dual boot doesn't get used much. The Parallels virual machine (similar to VMware) is just as fast as dual booting for CPU/RAM bound tasks thanks to the awesome Intel VT-x virtulization extensions. I have two Parallels VMs on my machine already, one WinXP and one Fedora Linux.

MacBookPro isn't perfect, but it's a pretty sweet machine. It's as thin (1") and light (5.6 lbs) as any of the other thin and light fully featured dual core, GPU, full size batter, optical drive, 15" notebooks out there. And it's made of brushed aluminum. Sexy!

I commend any PC user who buys a Mac, I honestly do; Microsoft needs to have some of their market presence taken away. I still consider them to be a monopoly.

One reason I still don't think Macs are the best choice for most people is that in order to run Windows programs, you still have to buy a Windows OS even with dual-boot. For people that need to use Windows programs for work or other things, this makes it a no-go. That's my situation (and I'm not a gamer). In addition, I worry just as much about what would happen if I get heavily invested in Macintosh software and make it my primary OS. That locks me into Apple, where I have no choice in OS and very little in hardware. Right now I have choice in hardware, which silly as it seems is important to me. Even though I don't like Microsoft as a company and hate their dominance, I view purchasing a Windows license for a new machine as a tax I must pay in order not to be locked into a single vendor.

I still wish Apple would release Mac OS for PCs. It would make me more likely to buy Apple hardware (besides making them a mint). In their own way, they are just as monopolistic a company as Microsoft, except in their grand vision they own the bulk of the world's hardware and OS business. Decoupling the two just doesn't make any sense to them, after many years.

I have seen and handled two of the new MacBooks in person. Pretty nice gear. Especially for someone who just needs a portable personal computing device and is not heavily invested in software, such as a student, it could make an awesome choice.

AmigaMan talks about using his new MacBook to do his work in Ubuntu. For someone like that, it makes really great sense as well, as much as any PC laptop.

Releasing mac OS as a stand alone product (e.g. not tied to running on apple hardware) would kill apple as a company (outside of perhaps their consumer electronics/ipod division. The sales of hardware are what funds the development of that OS, and the majority of their non-ipod profits come from hardware sales, not OS sales. Then there is the issue of getting hardware support, the associated instability that is bound to happen when a platform opens up to that degree, etc.

OSX opening up to a microsoft style business model would most likely result in the death of OSX.

As a side note, the Macbook Pro is worth every penny (perhaps I'll get unlazy and write up a review sometime).

The thinkpads are also sexy beasts in their own right.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
Releasing mac OS as a stand alone product (e.g. not tied to running on apple hardware) would kill apple as a company (outside of perhaps their consumer electronics/ipod division. The sales of hardware are what funds the development of that OS, and the majority of their non-ipod profits come from hardware sales, not OS sales. Then there is the issue of getting hardware support, the associated instability that is bound to happen when a platform opens up to that degree, etc.

OSX opening up to a microsoft style business model would most likely result in the death of OSX.

As a side note, the Macbook Pro is worth every penny (perhaps I'll get unlazy and write up a review sometime).

The thinkpads are also sexy beasts in their own right.

There's no reason to think it would kill the company. Microsoft is the most successful software developer ever. The sales of hardware are what hamper sales of the OS; if it were sold separately, it would make revenue on its own. The hardware instability argument I have never bought. It's not that hard to make a driver specification, is it?

Apple has always been stubborn on this. It seems to me that Mac users who say the same thing are just repeating the company line. Unless I see good evidence to the contrary, I can't help believing that opening things up would help both Apple and the consumer.

If they took away 10% of the OS market from Microsoft, that would represent way more profit than their entire hardware business generates. It costs almost nothing to print and package a CD or DVD, and the support cost for licenses with support would just become part of the price. Straight profit, with no factories to maintain, supplier delays, etc.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
Releasing mac OS as a stand alone product (e.g. not tied to running on apple hardware) would kill apple as a company (outside of perhaps their consumer electronics/ipod division. The sales of hardware are what funds the development of that OS, and the majority of their non-ipod profits come from hardware sales, not OS sales. Then there is the issue of getting hardware support, the associated instability that is bound to happen when a platform opens up to that degree, etc.

OSX opening up to a microsoft style business model would most likely result in the death of OSX.

As a side note, the Macbook Pro is worth every penny (perhaps I'll get unlazy and write up a review sometime).

The thinkpads are also sexy beasts in their own right.

There's no reason to think it would kill the company. Microsoft is the most successful software developer ever. The sales of hardware are what hamper sales of the OS; if it were sold separately, it would make revenue on its own. The hardware instability argument I have never bought. It's not that hard to make a driver specification, is it?

Apple has always been stubborn on this. It seems to me that Mac users who say the same thing are just repeating the company line. Unless I see good evidence to the contrary, I can't help believing that opening things up would help both Apple and the consumer.

If they took away 10% of the OS market from Microsoft, that would represent way more profit than their entire hardware business generates. It costs almost nothing to print and package a CD or DVD, and the support cost for licenses with support would just become part of the price. Straight profit, with no factories to maintain, supplier delays, etc.

Your assuming a lot of things.
1. you assume that their would be a magical huge surge in adoption of osx if it wasnt tied to apple hardware
-problem being this isnt necessarily the case - you're still chosing a platform by going with osx and the barriers to switching can be pricey (e.g. software doesn't tend to be cross os with one license) - the $500 mac mini didn't exactly boost the hell out of apple's market share even though it's an inexpensive way to use osx
2. you assume that the cost of osx would remain the same, when an opening up of the platform would most likely lead to an increase in cost (and thus consequently lowered amounts of folks buying) due to the complexities inherent to running on (and testing for compatibility) with a much broader range of hardware
3. you assume that osx wouldnt lose stability, when its a surefire guarantee that it would (at least in the initial years of its being opened up to a wider variety of hardware, where the kinks need to be worked out).
4. you assume that what works for microsoft is the magic bullet for other software companies, without accounting for alternative options of how to make money in the computer industry


Apple would be a fundamentally different company if they tried what you propose, and they would most likely tank as a result as they'd be left footing the software development bill with iPod funding and software sales (which would be slow to start off with on a most likely initially buggy and pricey first couple of releases).

For the entire history of their company they've sold a platform of sorts, the whole widget if you will. You'd have them chop off half that widget and go toe to toe with MS in the OS war with no real safety net - that sounds like corporate suicide.

 

[6000SUX]

"Your assuming a lot of things.
1. you assume that their would be a magical huge surge in adoption of osx if it wasnt tied to apple hardware
-problem being this isnt necessarily the case - you're still chosing a platform by going with osx and the barriers to switching can be pricey (e.g. software doesn't tend to be cross os with one license) - the $500 mac mini didn't exactly boost the hell out of apple's market share even though it's an inexpensive way to use osx "

Go read the threads on this site and elsewhere (such as dpreview.com, which I also frequent) where many people say that they'd buy the OS if they could run it on non-Apple hardware. There is a large market out there for a quality non-Microsoft user-friendly OS.

The Mac mini wasn't exactly the cheapest machine ever made, and you're missing the point. If the OS could be used on any PC hardware, vendors like Dell would start offering it as an option.

"2. you assume that the cost of osx would remain the same,"

Nope. I never said that, or assumed it in private. Right now the cost is about as high as it would get though; it's just wrapped into the price of the hardware.

" when an opening up of the platform would most likely lead to an increase in cost (and thus consequently lowered amounts of folks buying) due to the complexities inherent to running on (and testing for compatibility) with a much broader range of hardware "

This is a paper tiger. I don't think you understand that Microsoft does not write chipset drivers; vendors do. In addition, that formula works; Windows XP machines do not suffer from hardware instability.

"3. you assume that osx wouldnt lose stability, when its a surefire guarantee that it would (at least in the initial years of its being opened up to a wider variety of hardware, where the kinks need to be worked out). "

There's absolutely no reason to believe this, unless you're just repeating something you read on this site from other garden-variety users.

"4. you assume that what works for microsoft is the magic bullet for other software companies, without accounting for alternative options of how to make money in the computer industry "

All publicly-traded companies are supposed to try to maximize their profits; it's required by law. Apple is sitting on top of a gold mine, and refusing to exploit it.

What works for Microsoft is selling an operating system. Of course it would work for another company. As it is, a lot of people who do buy Macs cite the ease of use and other good qualities of the OS, not the hardware.

 

[ShellGuy]

I highly doubt dell would start to sell osx if it was open to the retail market. when you get a oem maker having to support 2 os's that is an issue. you have to have support staff to do both or one for each.. good luck at taht. you know how much mac techs cost. because they know what they are doing and most have been doing it for along time. OSX would prob crash more than windows on non apple hardware the first few years as they work the bugs out of it.

Will G.

 

[halfadder]

Yeah, really the biggest problem with moving to a Mac is having to buy a copy of Windows for dual booting (via Bootcamp) or VM (via Parallels). Many gov't offices, schools and universities have site licenses for XP, but the average home user has to go buy the $300 copy of windows, or at least order the $80 OEM version from NewEgg. It adds up.

Eh, the Mac-platform-lock-in arguement isn't as relevent as it once was. Computers these days have a long life and Macs use pretty standard components for RAM, HD, etc. These days it's pretty rare to use the same old software on three generations of machines, and most cross-platform software companies offer cross-platform upgrades. For example, my graphics arts buddy had Photoshop CS1 on his Windows PC, when he bought a Mac, he was able to pay the upgrade price and get the Mac version of Photoshop CS2.

Besides, it's a world of protocols, not platforms. I use 4 different OS platforms on an average week, I don't even give it second thought.... .doc, .pdf, .psd, .xls, .jpg, .mp3... perl scripts, websites, PHP scripts, SQL queries.