Too many to choose

2010-01-21 12:26:35

#1

jay_courage: Alive in a sea of mediocre; +131|6218|Carnoustie

I've been looking at getting a laptop for a while now due to my situation and was wondering if anyone has had any dealings with the following

1:rock laptops
2:kobalt computers
3:sager laptops
4:alienware
5:asus laptops

I've been reaserching my arse off and have found mixed reviews on all companys above, so If you've had dealing with any company listed could you tell me how your experience has been

thanks all

I Friggin Love The Nhs

2010-01-21 12:27:49

#2

blademaster: I'm moving to Brazil; +2,075|6904

Lenovo- excellent experience (ask max 2) he recommend me one he has one 2

2010-01-21 12:36:33

#3

whaaaaaaaaaat: ><>; +215|5509

lenovo asus or dell ftw

2010-01-21 12:38:37

#4

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6860|132 and Bush

and if money is no object falcon-nw

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2010-01-21 12:47:50

#5

jay_courage: Alive in a sea of mediocre; +131|6218|Carnoustie

Lenovo look nice but it lacks oomph. I need a semi-desktop-gaming goliath. I know gaming and laptop don't belong but alas I have no choice.

Edit:looked at falcon-nw, you must have a head made of cheese to think those prices are reasonable for what your getting

Last edited by jay_courage (2010-01-21 13:32:31)

I Friggin Love The Nhs

2010-01-23 11:09:36

#6

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6860|132 and Bush

tis why I said if it's no object. Have you have seen or used a Falcon-NW product? Quality all around. They beat the shit out of alienware (I've owned two of them as well).

ASUS has a laptop coming out with a terabyte hd, intel i7 (720) quad core, nvidia gt 330m, and 8 gigs of ram for under 2k.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2010-01-23 11:53:06

#7

Winston_Churchill: Bazinga!; +521|6998|Toronto | Canada

I'm quite turned off ASUS at the moment. Both my cousin and I got them a year and a half ago and theyre both dying quickly. Errors left, right and centre. If I move my laptop while its on it freezes completely. I would never buy an ASUS laptop again, but I guess thats just my experience.

Lenovos look rock solid and preform quite well, both my dad and uncle have them and theyre working great

2010-01-23 12:22:42

#8

FloppY_: +1,010|6545|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

You might find this interesting: (click for source)

https://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/11/17nov09compach0qw83.jpg

Last edited by FloppY_ (2010-01-23 12:23:04)

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2010-01-23 12:27:47

#9

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6673|Finland

FloppY_ wrote:
You might find this interesting: (click for source)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com … h0qw83.jpg

What a bullcrap survey.

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2010-01-23 12:34:52

#10

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6840|SE London

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
FloppY_ wrote:
You might find this interesting: (click for source)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com … h0qw83.jpg
What a bullcrap survey.

Indeed it is.

I can confirm it doesn't match the official figures from Apple. I suspect the rest is bullshit too.

HP worst and Asus and Toshiba best? Not what I would've expected.

2010-01-23 12:36:59

#11

FloppY_: +1,010|6545|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

Bertster7 wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
FloppY_ wrote:
You might find this interesting: (click for source)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com … h0qw83.jpg
What a bullcrap survey.
Indeed it is.

I can confirm it doesn't match the official figures from Apple. I suspect the rest is bullshit too.

HP worst and Asus and Toshiba best? Not what I would've expected.

"Official figures from Apple"
pfft, as if they would tell the true rate of failure on their own product..

HP is certainly amongst the worst

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2010-01-23 12:39:32

#12

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6840|SE London

FloppY_ wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
What a bullcrap survey.
Indeed it is.

I can confirm it doesn't match the official figures from Apple. I suspect the rest is bullshit too.

HP worst and Asus and Toshiba best? Not what I would've expected.
"Official figures from Apple"
pfft, as if they would tell the true rate of failure on their own product..

?

What are you talking about?

They have accurate figures on this stuff.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-01-23 12:40:37)

2010-01-23 12:42:59

#13

FloppY_: +1,010|6545|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

Bertster7 wrote:
FloppY_ wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

Indeed it is.

I can confirm it doesn't match the official figures from Apple. I suspect the rest is bullshit too.

HP worst and Asus and Toshiba best? Not what I would've expected.
"Official figures from Apple"
pfft, as if they would tell the true rate of failure on their own product..
?

What are you talking about?

They have accurate figures on this stuff.

And you can bet they do everything they can to decorate those numbers to the lowest possible they can get away with...

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2010-01-23 12:43:52

#14

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6840|SE London

FloppY_ wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
FloppY_ wrote:
"Official figures from Apple"
pfft, as if they would tell the true rate of failure on their own product..
?

What are you talking about?

They have accurate figures on this stuff.
And you can bet they do everything they can to decorate those numbers to the lowest possible they can get away with...

Why would they do that? They need them to be accurate because they use them for all sorts of things (like working out how much to charge for AppleCare).

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-01-23 12:45:10)

2010-01-23 12:45:34

#15

FloppY_: +1,010|6545|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

Bertster7 wrote:
FloppY_ wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

?

What are you talking about?

They have accurate figures on this stuff.
And you can bet they do everything they can to decorate those numbers to the lowest possible they can get away with...
Why would they do that? They need them to be accurate because they use them for all sorts of things.

Because it is marketing.. No company will ever willingly admit that there is something wrong with their product, especially not one as arrogant as Apple...

They use the "true" ones internally, sure they migth.. but any official ones released to the press are sure to be minimized...

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2010-01-23 12:46:15

#16

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6712|The Twilight Zone

Ini-Mini-Miny-Mo...

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png

2010-01-23 12:46:18

#17

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6840|SE London

FloppY_ wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
FloppY_ wrote:

And you can bet they do everything they can to decorate those numbers to the lowest possible they can get away with...
Why would they do that? They need them to be accurate because they use them for all sorts of things.
Because it is marketing.. No company will ever willingly admit that there is something wrong with their product, especially not one as arrogant as Apple...

They use the "true" ones internally, sure they migth.. but any official ones released to the press are sure to be minimized...

I'm not talking about ones released to the press.

2010-01-23 12:47:44

#18

FloppY_: +1,010|6545|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

Bertster7 wrote:
FloppY_ wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Why would they do that? They need them to be accurate because they use them for all sorts of things.
Because it is marketing.. No company will ever willingly admit that there is something wrong with their product, especially not one as arrogant as Apple...

They use the "true" ones internally, sure they migth.. but any official ones released to the press are sure to be minimized...
I'm not talking about ones released to the press.

Good luck using non-published numbers in your survey then...

N/A's across the board then eh??

Numbers gathered about several manurfacturers by a single 3rd party will allways be more accurate than those the companies themselves have had their fingers on

Last edited by FloppY_ (2010-01-23 12:49:05)

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2010-01-23 12:48:42

#19

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6840|SE London

FloppY_ wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
FloppY_ wrote:

Because it is marketing.. No company will ever willingly admit that there is something wrong with their product, especially not one as arrogant as Apple...

They use the "true" ones internally, sure they migth.. but any official ones released to the press are sure to be minimized...
I'm not talking about ones released to the press.
Good luck using non-published numbers in your survey then...

I'm not doing a survey. Just pointing out an inaccuracy in theirs.

2010-01-23 12:49:40

#20

FloppY_: +1,010|6545|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

Bertster7 wrote:
FloppY_ wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
I'm not talking about ones released to the press.
Good luck using non-published numbers in your survey then...
I'm not doing a survey. Just pointing out an inaccuracy in theirs.

^ I edited above....

You just don't get a thing do you... And I know you weren't doing a survey.. learn to read between the lines plz
facepalm.jpg

Last edited by FloppY_ (2010-01-23 12:50:21)

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2010-01-23 12:55:10

#21

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6840|SE London

FloppY_ wrote:
Numbers gathered about several manurfacturers by a single 3rd party will allways be more accurate than those the companies themselves have had their fingers on

I think you'll find the opposite is true.

The numbers gathered by the companies themselves will be pretty much exact.

Suggesting that a survey by a 3rd party will always be more accurate than internal reliability figures is complete nonsense.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-01-23 12:56:18)

2010-01-23 12:56:40

#22

FloppY_: +1,010|6545|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

Bertster7 wrote:
FloppY_ wrote:
Numbers gathered about several manurfacturers by a single 3rd party will allways be more accurate than those the companies themselves have had their fingers on
I think you'll find the opposite is true.

The numbers gathered by the companies themselves will be pretty much exact.

omfg.. how can you be this ignorant... do you even read what I write.. YES THEY KNOW THE TRUE NUMBERS BUT CHANCES ARE THEY DO NOT PUBLISH THEM WITHOUT MAKING THEM LOOK BETTER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111oneoneoneelleven!

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2010-01-23 12:57:09

#23

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6673|Finland

You can misuse public surveys.

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2010-01-23 13:00:19

#24

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6840|SE London

FloppY_ wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
FloppY_ wrote:
Numbers gathered about several manurfacturers by a single 3rd party will allways be more accurate than those the companies themselves have had their fingers on
I think you'll find the opposite is true.

The numbers gathered by the companies themselves will be pretty much exact.
omfg.. how can you be this ignorant... do you even read what I write.. YES THEY KNOW THE TRUE NUMBERS BUT CHANCES ARE THEY DO NOT PUBLISH THEM WITHOUT MAKING THEM LOOK BETTER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111oneoneoneelleven!

As I've said, I'm talking about internal figures.

What is the obsession with figures they publish? I don't see the relevance to my original point.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-01-23 13:01:06)

2010-01-23 13:01:42

#25

FloppY_: +1,010|6545|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

Bertster7 wrote:
FloppY_ wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

I think you'll find the opposite is true.

The numbers gathered by the companies themselves will be pretty much exact.
omfg.. how can you be this ignorant... do you even read what I write.. YES THEY KNOW THE TRUE NUMBERS BUT CHANCES ARE THEY DO NOT PUBLISH THEM WITHOUT MAKING THEM LOOK BETTER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111oneoneoneelleven!
As I've said, I'm talking about internal figures.

ZOMFG.... so please provide the survey apple made that compares several of their competitors... otherwise gtfo... who cares about single figures... when you can't compare them to the competitors, they don't mean jack shite

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

BF2S Forums Too many to choose

FloppY_ wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Board footer