POST A COMMENT

50 Comments

Back to Article

  • trexpesto - Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - link

    Didn't notice much about screen quality. Reply
  • cactux - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Hello,

    Such articles are great, but you say nothing about the Linux compatibility of these PCs.
    In only 5 minutes, you could test them, using for example a Knoppix. This Linux distribution boots are works from one CD.
    This would allow you to say what works and what fails (sound, screen, nouse, etc.)

    Regards
    Yann
    Reply
  • CB1 - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Want Linux? Get an Acer. A version of the Acer TravelMate TM2312LCi has been sold briefly with a Linux boot disk and no OS. There is an Asian linux distro linked at Acer's website.

    HP has had an Ubuntu option available in Europe.

    I've just booted a Compaq X1000 from the latest Ubuntu live disk, and it produces a perfectly working desktop, at the correct screen resolution. I wasn't in a location to check the modem or wireless, but I doubt there would be problems. Win 2K wouldn't give me the proper screen res or colours without the Compaq driver disk.

    Short of gaming, you'll have as many issues with Win as Linux. I don't think it requires special consideration in the test.
    Reply
  • nullpointerus - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    I'd love to see a test like this, too.

    In the meantime you take a look at building your own laptop from Linux-compatible parts:

    http://www.anandtech.com/news/default.aspx?newdate...">http://www.anandtech.com/news/default.aspx?newdate...
    Reply
  • artifex - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    ...because a couple of weeks ago, we bought my sister a v2000z, with a 3000+ chip, for $400 or so after rebates. I think the office supply company that sold it to us figured out they screwed up, because it hasn't been that low, since :) Anyway, at these prices, look at the Sunday ads before you buy, because if one is substantially cheaper than the Gateway, like ours was, go for it instead. Reply
  • Myrandex - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    I have seen plenty of laptops for sale under $600 with 512MB ram. Well at least on a sale and not a regular price. I wouldn't buy a machine w/ 256MB of ram at all anymore :-/ Reply
  • bupkus - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    What's with these 90 day warranties? Reply
  • unclebud - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    heartily enjoyed!
    and also printing out to share with my coworkers -- the most asked question for me "is how good is this laptop?"
    can just give this to them (to read) instead...
    Reply
  • MacLean - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    You can't review low price great bang for the buck laptops without including a model from Acer. The Acer AS3003 is AMD Sempron based, has WI-FI and all the of the specifications reviewed for the other models.

    I am very interested to find out how the integrated SIS Mirage 2 graphics go head to head vs. Intel and ATI.

    Hardly a beauty contest if you don't invite all the contestants.
    Reply
  • CB1 - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    I too was surprised by the absence of a model from Acer. They are ubiquitous in the market here in Vancouver, and have a good reputation for quality. Their bottom end models, both Cel M and Sempron, use SiS chipsets. I could care less about gaming capabilities of the onboard video, but would really like to know about the performance and battery life of the Cel M Acers with an SiS chipset.
    Please include one when you test the new Dell model.
    Otherwise, this was a very well done and thorough test, up to the usual Anandtech standards. The idea of testing the loss leader versions was brilliant.

    Bottom end model locally is the Acer TravelMate TM2312LCi-H.
    Reply
  • johnsonx - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Inspiron 6000 (can be had for $600 on the right day)
    Acer Aspire 3003

    Rudimentary gaming benchmarks. Yes, most current games are almost unplayable on these, but some would probably play fine. I played Dungeon Siege LOA quite happily on my Inspiron 6000, and old Unreal Tournament works great (even UT2k4 is just barely playable at 640x480x16, though very ugly). It would also be nice to see how much better ATI integrated gfx are vs. Intel (and SiS Mirage 2 in the case of the Acer).
    Reply
  • hondaman - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    I agree that its long overdue for a laptop graphics gaming review. Using all the common graphics, integrated or not, like the mirage 2, x200m, 700m, 9700, and all the assorted nvidia ones. Reply
  • johnsonx - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    "with the Dell doing absolutely dismally at only 144 minutes. The only tangible advantage we can see that Gateway has in this case is that they use an older chipset"...

    The tangible disadvantage for the Dell is that they use the old NiMH battery instead of Lithium ion. I have the original version of that laptop, the Inspiron 1000. It's battery life sucked even worse, plus it died after only 5 months.

    If you even remotely care about battery life, DON'T buy a dell with the NiMH battery. Don't buy a Dell without a 1-year warranty either.

    Reply
  • ksherman - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Is there any hope for upgrades in these laptops? Like if I poped the hood off the COmpaq (Smepron of course) and threw in a Turion MT processor... or even a pentium M for the others, is that something doable? Reply
  • Hacp - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    I know for a fact that the compaqs are upgradable. you can upgrade the processor/ram/hd/optical drive. Reply
  • bloc - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/compute...">http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopp...el=2&...

    IT's TFT XGA, not WXGA.
    Reply
  • SilverTrine - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    I'm amazed that Gateway tries to charge $50 shipping on a notebook. Anands assertion of $600 laptops is misleading, with shipping and tax this laptop is $800. Reply
  • KCjeeper - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    I purchased one of these Gateway laptops a few weeks ago and am very pleased with it. Mine came with the wireless G and I only paid $579. Reply
  • bldckstark - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    I am curious as to which company(ies) denied access to test parts. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but I wonder who is so embarassed of their product that they don't want them compared openly. Reply
  • bjacobson - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Something worth noting is that the good battery life on the V2000 is thanks to the Intel 2200BG integrated wireless, not the Broadcom wireless. The Broadcom is what made the V2000z Sempron's do so poorly. Reply
  • rqle - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Hmm, didnt know these littler celeron M 1.4ghz can pretty much outpace the new architecture of the sempron 2800+ cpu. interesting. Reply
  • Questar - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    How about an Inspiron 6000? I snagged one for $584 + $19 shipping. Reply
  • Questar - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    BTW, that was with a P-M, not a C-M. Reply
  • bjacobson - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    nice
    Reply
  • Questar - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Yeah, and now I see you can get a 600m for less than $600. Reply
  • Alphafox78 - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    I have a V2000Z with a Turion64 and its great!!! It sounds like the article is biased against compaq or something, the thing is sweet. works great in World of Warcraft and even plays BF2, althouh its not too fun. the form factor is great, I highly recommend it. mine does have the brightview screen, 1GB of PC3200 ram and a 5400rpm drive tho.. ;) Reply
  • SS - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    The point of this was for $600 range laptops, going with the Turion64 setup over the Sempron and upgrading the RAM and hard drive all would push the price well over the price point this review was for.

    So you are basically asking to rate the $600 laptop based off the $1400 model's preformance.
    Reply
  • Alphafox78 - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    I got mine for $760 after tax. then the free buestbuy ram, used the HD from my old laptop. lower than $700 after the free ram and stuff. I didnt get it for $500, missed that offer by a week! arg! Reply
  • Hacp - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Tell that to the people who got the Turion 64 V2000Zs with wireless/12cell for around 500 shipped taxed. Then add the free 1GB bestbuy ram. Reply
  • Hacp - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Ya if you can get it for under 450 taxed shipped of course its great :).

    Also to further my comments, I think this article really shows the strenght of the Intel centrino platform. In other tests with dedicated graphics cards, the Turion/sempron/ and Pentium M come really close in terms of battery life, but in this test, comparing the V2000 to the V2000Z, we see that the whole platform makes the celeron have much battery life, even though the sempron "should" have more Blife.
    Reply
  • OrSin - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    No video benchmarks at all. I'm not saying test BF2, but something would be nice.
    I think the AMD laptops would show some definate leads in that.
    Reply
  • raskren - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    It sounds like you want to see a benchmark where the AMD offerings *might* show an advantage over Intel so you can feel better about *your* company.

    These are not for gaming. Why should Anand waste his time?

    Why don't we do some Geo Metro top speed testing as well?
    Reply
  • hondaman - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Has nothing to do with amd vs intel.

    Has everything to do with how well laptops do compared to desktops in games.
    Reply
  • hondaman - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    I was dissappointed about this too. It was the first thing i looked for when I read this article today on anandtech. I wanted some game benchmarks.

    Anyone who buys a 600.00 laptop isnt buying it for games, however, I _am_ in the market for a laptop in the 1000.00 range, and I would like to do some casual gaming here and there on it. Severeral of these laptops reviewed share the same video processor as some laptops much more expensive, and good laptop reviews are so hard to come by.
    Reply
  • Hacp - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Bottom line, gaming on integrated graphics is non existant. If you want a gaming laptop, get dedicated graphics. Reply
  • PrinceGaz - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link

    Gaming does not necessarily mean playing the very latest games, and at the highest graphics quality settings. Some people seem to think all that matters with a game is how pretty the graphics are, and discard it when something that looks better comes along. Gameplay is more important to me, and there are plenty of older games that are just as much fun to play as the current hits.

    I'm sure all of these $600 laptops with their integrated graphics (especially ATI) would be quite capable of playing the top games of the 2001-2002 era very well, and do a decent job with some later titles as well. The only likely probloem is the 256MB system memory which has to be shared with graphics-- but an upgrade to 512MB is the first thing most people would do to these laptops anyway to make them more flexible.
    Reply
  • mikecel79 - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Why? Who is going to try and game on one of these things? Reply
  • oupei - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    maybe some RTS games or something would have been nice. Reply
  • Hacp - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Gaming would be horrible. WHo would wnat to play halflife 2 at 800x600 at 24 frames per second?

    I have a V2000Z and tried playing some games on it. It sucks. About the only "modern" game that I can play is Civ VI.

    I'm pretty sure that older games will run fine on it though.
    Reply
  • bjacobson - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Do you have the x300 ATi or the Intel graphics? I'm thinking of getting one of these boards too. Reply
  • Hacp - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    x200 graphics with/o dedicated memory.

    If you get x300 graphics with some dedicated memory, it should play some of hte latest games at halfway acceptable settings. Just dont' expect to be playing FPS smoothly though, but RPGs/rts should be fine. Racing should be fine too.
    Reply
  • manno - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    me Reply
  • LoneWolf15 - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Interesting to note that even without Speedstep, the Celeron-M still has better battery life. Then again, didn't Intel change some designs in transistor-switching to make battery performance better even at full speed?

    One comment, more to notebook manufacturers: Where the heck is my Trackpoint mouse? I can't stand touchpads, which require me to take my fingers off the keyboard to use, when a trackpoint can be used almost simultaneously. I can type 75-80wpm, and don't find touchpads very efficient for this reason (my older but top-of-the-line-when-released Latitude C840 has both devices). Somebody, please bring back the Trackpoint!
    Reply
  • Hacp - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Also, why do you have to take your fingers of the keyboard to use the touchpad? I keep one hand on the keyboard, and one hand on the touchpad when using my computer. Rightclick is tap top right corner, leftclick is tap anywhere on the touchpad that doesn't involve the top right corner. Reply
  • Zorba - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    I too hate touchpads and miss the old mouse sticks. I always rub the touchpad with my arm when typing and usually end up clicking some where I don't want to. It also takes me much longer to navigate with a touchpad and I usually accidently click something because I change the amount of pressure on the pad (I know you can turn the clicking off, but I still don't like the pad). It is a personal preference but I would like to at least be given the chance to pick between the two. Reply
  • matthewfoley - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    Yeah, well I hate the mouse sticks. Who cares. Reply
  • Zorba - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    The point the original poster and I were trying to make is manufacturers should include both devices, which a lot of them used to do. Reply
  • Hacp - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    The battery life difference is most likely due to the ATI chipset and integrated graphics, which uses more power than intel EE. Reply
  • Tamale - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    page 9's link to page 10 is shot Reply
  • Tamale - Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - link

    nvm :] Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now