Toshiba KIRAbook Ultrabook Review
by Dustin Sklavos on May 9, 2013 12:01 AM ESTConclusion: So Very Close
Without having personally tested any of the ASUS Zenbooks, which at least around the "office" (disclaimer: there is not an office) are generally regarded as among the best ultrabooks on the market, I can't really speak too greatly on how the Toshiba KIRAbook measures up competitively. I can definitely tell you how the user experience measures up to the myriad non-ASUS ultrabooks I have tested, though.
The essential ingredients to any PC computing experience are the keyboard, the mouse/touchpad, the display, and responsiveness. Other factors only become relevant when they're extremes; an unusually fast GPU or CPU, or unusually high thermals or noise. When it comes to the user experience, Toshiba's KIRAbook offers one of the best you can have with an ultrabook. That needs to account for the slightly poorer keyboard quality stemming from the lack of thickness as well as the propensity for clickpads, both of which are compromises made when switching to an ultrabook. Yet Toshiba is able to eke halfway decent depth out of the keys, and the clickpad is serviceable if not mindblowing.
The big wins are the responsiveness and the display. Toshiba's SSD and healthy 8GB of RAM keep the KIRAbook running very smoothly, and the lack of bloatware is immensely appreciated. Display quality is, as I mentioned, absolutely stunning. There was also the pleasant surprise of the speakers, which are really as good as ultrabook speakers are going to get.
So why isn't the KIRAbook a slam dunk? The biggest reason is actually the price, because a starting price of $1,599 forces the KIRAbook into a class it has a much harder time competing in. If the entry level KIRAbook manages to appear in retail at $1,399 or even $1,299, it'll be a wicked deal and easily recommended. But starting at $1,599 and only going north produces some problems and throws design issues into sharp relief.
.jpg)
First, the lid flex is inexcusable at this price point, full stop. It's not horrible, but it's unnerving enough when you're dealing with a display as beautiful as this one is. The magnesium alloy that Toshiba is using also tragically doesn't look that great; it's not unattractive, but it looks like high rent plastic, which we can all agree wasn't what Toshiba was going for. Whether or not it's more sturdy than the aluminum alloy Apple uses (as Toshiba claims) becomes less relevant because it doesn't actually look better.
As far as the specs go, Toshiba did an admirable job and then inexplicably cheaped out with a vengeance on the wireless connectivity. Whether or not 5GHz connectivity is important may depend on the individual, but anyone spending $1.6k on a notebook probably shouldn't be using a cheap, $50 2.4GHz router and dealing with the interference of everyone else's cheap 2.4GHz routers. My smartphone does 5GHz, and a genuine dual band wireless card from Intel only adds $10 or so to the BoM, if that, so there's no excuse for this.
I also have a hard time recommending any model of the KIRAbook but the entry one. The $1,799 one is a joke; you're paying $200 just to add touchscreen capability to the KIRAbook. At least the $1,999 model (as reviewed) offers a faster processor and the expanded feature set of Windows 8 Pro, but the $200 price jumps are tough to justify.
Finally, the biggest fly in the ointment may actually be the impending launch of Haswell. If you pre-order and buy the first generation KIRAbook you're probably going to regret it in a few months; Haswell promises roughly 10% better IPC, and the low voltage models will enjoy a 2W lower TDP. It's tough to argue with better performance and less heat (and thus less noise), and hopefully in the refresh Toshiba will update the wireless card to something from the last year or two.
Is the KIRAbook a bad product? No, not at all, quite the opposite actually. But it's a good product that has a questionable price and poor timing, and that's ultimately where things go south. Price wise it's actually competitive with the PC market, but has a much rougher time competing with the 13.3" Apple Retina MacBook Pro, which actually starts at $100 less. That's the hard lesson PC manufacturers still haven't quite learned: you don't compete with Apple. You can make something that's ostensibly better than an Apple product, but if it's running Windows, you need to charge less for it. The best case scenario for the first generation KIRAbook is a fire sale after the Haswell-based refresh materializes, and that's a verdict I'm not at all happy to deliver for such a promising product.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
110 Comments
View All Comments
ananduser - Thursday, May 9, 2013 - link
Don't forget OSX. OSX only runs on macs. If you want or need OSX you have no choice but to get a mac. Windows compatibility ads to the desirability. Mac sales really "exploded" when they switched to Intel. If they were mutually exclusive with Windows I doubt they would've passed the 1-2 million/year volume.About crap ... the mbp 13". 1280x800 resolution(TN panel), 5400 rpm, integrated graphics. All for 1400$(in Europe). Ironically it is the most purchased item within Apple's line up.
solipsism - Thursday, May 9, 2013 - link
» "Mac sales really "exploded" when they switched to Intel."That doesn't mesh with the time lines as Intel Mac sales jumped immediately but the ability to do dual boot or run a VM came later. Sure, people could have assumed this would soon be a viable option but that hardly seems like the primary reason to drop $2k for a notebook
The MBP were a new design in a time when PPC had long sense drop the ball for mobile chips. The boost in performance per Watt and the anticipation was tremendous. Mac users knew these were coming, they just came much sooner than Apple had promised.
» "If they were mutually exclusive with Windows I doubt they would've passed the 1-2 million/year volume."
I'm not so sure. As Silma says, they are goal oriented. I think if they only sold Windows they would be the best Windows notebook vendor on the market.
On top of that it doesn't really jibe with your previous comment that they only became popular because of Windows.
ananduser - Thursday, May 9, 2013 - link
I always thought that if Apple would start pumping Windows only macs they would eat(at least in the States) Dell and HP's lunches.They are still "relatively" popular in the States alone(even there 11% or 12%); don't overdo it. Apple is after margins not share, so in absolute terms I believe I am right. Windows compatibility definitely made many people switch that were on the fence due to some win exclusive software. There isn't a single macuser without parallels/vmware and a Win license, metaphorically speaking ofc.
B3an - Friday, May 10, 2013 - link
"Don't forget OSX. OSX only runs on macs. If you want or need OSX you have no choice but to get a mac."It's easy to get OSX running in a VM. Or theres always the hackintosh route. How can you not know this...
KPOM - Thursday, May 9, 2013 - link
Macs also have better trackpads. Until the Chromebook Pixel, no non-Mac notebook came close to the Mac. It can't be that much more expensive to put in a decent trackpad.andrewaggb - Thursday, May 9, 2013 - link
yeah. My issue is nobody seems to make an end to end good computer. With desktops I could build my own and choose what I was willing to compromise on (if anything). But laptops you can't do that.At this point in my life I'm not interested in compromising on much of anything in my work computer. At least not if it's just cost related (like a wifi card and touchpad). Obviously there are heat/weight/performance tradeoff's that a little money can't fix, but otherwise I'd really like a premium machine start to finish. As a software developer/enthusiast/occasional gamer, ideally it would have an excellent screen, keyboard, touchpad, connectivity (network, audio/video,usb etc), graphics, fast encrypted storage, everything :-). I really don't think it's impossible or unreasonable, but nobody seems to have built a laptop that caters to me yet. Macbook pro's are close but I have extremely little interest in mac os. I have a mac mini for occasional mobile development and that's it. My most important apps are visual studio, eclipse, sql server, postgres, chrome, and internet explorer. Half of those are windows only.
bji - Thursday, May 9, 2013 - link
As a software developer I greatly prefer OS X to Windows. It's probably because I come from a Unix background and my primary development environment for nearly 20 years was Linux. I find that OS X gives me nearly the same set of nice development tools (oriented towards my preferred development style) as Linux did, while also giving me a first class graphical environment and graphical development tools.Of the software that you listed, unless you are truly wedded to Visual Studio, there are equivalent or identical software choices available on Mac OS X and Linux. I know that a development environment can be a very personal thing and it's hard to switch, so if you have to have Visual Studio, I guess you're stuck on Windows. If you can handle a different IDE then nothing that you listed sounds like a reason to stick with Windows.
andrewaggb - Thursday, May 9, 2013 - link
My primary employment is enterprise .net apps running on microsoft sql server databases :-). To be honest, I really like Visual Studio and c# is my favorite programming language. Windows is ok. It would be nice if it had a bourne shell and gcc and great posix support, but virtualization is so easy these days it's not a big deal anymore. I write most of my linux applications (c/c++/ or mono .net) in visual studio as well. I certainly could use a different IDE for those but it's a workflow thing :-)robinthakur - Monday, May 13, 2013 - link
I just run server 2008r2 in a virtual environment on my MBP and it works great for Visual Studio Development. This is a handy setup for me because you need a Mac to run Xcode and iOS development.ahamling27 - Saturday, May 11, 2013 - link
About 4 years ago now, (wow I can't believe I'm still using this laptop) I was in this same predicament. But I found the Gateway P-7811FX and I'm still using it as my laptop of choice. Sure it's not an ultrabook (it's nowhere close) but it has a dual core 2.2 ghz proc, and that hasn't changed a whole lot anymore. It's a 17" screen which turns some people off, but it's 1920 x 1200 resolution is impossible to find today. Sure you can argue that a 1080p 17" screen is only 120 pixels less top to bottom, but you tend to still find more 768p monitors than anything, 4 years later.Plus it has 2 bays for hard drives. I don't have an SSD in it, because I threw in a couple 500 GB WD Blacks in raid 0, and I don't want to mess with that. But it's plenty snappy.
Also the Nvidia 9800m GTS can play most games, just nothing like Crysis 3.
Anyway, my point is, there was a time before "Ultrabooks" that they did try and make some great laptops for a great price, hell I only paid $999 for that Gateway. Now that they have a buzz word, I think it gives laptop manufactures a excuse to charge more for a laptop that really should be priced lower.