Toshiba vs HP vs Lenovo Laptops

<p>I am in desperate need of upgrading my laptop. Currently I am running an older HP workstation class laptop, unsure of the exact specs other than an Nvidia Quadra video card, 17 inch screen, 3GB RAM and 120GB HD. The laptop is about 4 years old.</p>

<p>I am moving to laptop only for my workspace, and would love to continue use a larger one (i.e. 17 inch screen). Currently I only do photo-processing, but I should be moving into the realm of small video (1080P at 2 to 5 minutes in length with minimal processing.</p>

<p>I have my eyes on both a Lenovo and HP units with quad-core Intel i7 processors and dual hard drives. But, how does Toshiba compare in quality in their current products. Everyone I know, myself included, has had the screen die on theirs in two years. But, I haven't seen anyone with a newer one to compare notes on that one.</p>

<p>And, for the most part, the unit will be placed on a desk and just sit there. My netbook meets the needs for most of my day to day mobility needs.</p>

<p>Um,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And, for the most part, the unit will be placed on a desk and just sit there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then why are you buying a laptop for this function? No matter what system--Windows, Linux, Mac--you will get much more for the same money, even including a monitor if you don't have one, with a machine made for the desktop. More hard disk, more memory, faster processor (not to worry so much about heat), easier to attach peripherals, and so on and on. Even the all-in-one solutions (the iMac or its imitators in other systems) will give more bang for the buck.</p>

<p>Let your netbook serve when it will, but don't get a laptop unless that is really what you NEED. I love my laptop, but I wouldn't want to do extensive post-processing on it. It's great in the field, but is inferior on the desktop to even some of my ancient desktop computers that I have relegated to rote tasks like scanning and downloading.</p>

Go with Dell

<p>I think JDM's got it right. If you don't need the laptop for travel a desktop is a far better choice in every respect possible. Much, much more bang for the buck, much better display possibilities, faster, ........... I use a laptop for travel but it stays in the bag when home, absolutely hate it for image processing.</p>

<p>Garrison, I have had too many Dells fail....</p>

<p>JDM, beleive it or not, after spending many many days trying to justify it, I can't justify the space of a desktop. I even considered an all-in-one unit, then realized bang for the buck wasn't there at all. There are instances where I will still need to move it and be nimble (i.e. video/photo processing on location or nearby coffee shop). As for storage, after years of flipping from desktop to laptop, I have ended up with the pain in the butt that is getting all of my data off of the internal drives on the desktop to transfer from one machine to another.</p>

<p>In fact, I have spent the last year solely working off my HP laptop and it has been great. The desktop was just way too slow and offered no advantages beyond internal storage. But after a year of completely laptop based work, I couldn't come up with a reason to buy a desktop again. All photos have been moved to external storage and eventually a NAS. And with the power of today's laptops, it just seems silly to buy a laptop and desktop and have that extra clutter.</p>

Zach, toshiba and hp are two of the worst imo. Only the toughbook i'd consider. Perhaps do

some more research? My best friend has ordered 23 dells in 5 years and only had one bad

apple and that was nvidia's gpu problem.

<p>My vote would be Dell or Lenovo. I've purchased three Toshibas for business, and they're less than okay. The battery life is non existent, and I've had a lot of unexplained driver problems. Dells are rock solid, as are the Lenovo's. Also had bad juju with Sony, FWIW. And the HP I'm on right now is a PITA. It is always missing some software component or driver, and I get to go fish around to figure out how to fix it each time.</p>

<p>Garrison, this is part of my research....</p>

<p>Like I said, too many Dells have failed. I have seen probably 4 or 5 of their laptops go down in some bizarre ways.</p>

<p>This all said, I looked at the failure rates of companies online, and Toshiba came up as the best, and Lenovo and HP were the last (based on 2009 services per unit sold and reported). But then I find another chart that has satisfaction listings and Lenovo is second (Apple being first) and HP somewhere in the middle, and Dell was pretty close to last place. Don't remember where Toshiba faired. Thus, I am beginning to think I can find a chart that lists any company as the best.</p>

Your expeirence with dell is contrary with most others. And your research seems odd as well. I'd like to read your links if

possible as that just doesn't make sense to me as Lenovo is regarded as a great build but a bit slow. The only thing

toshiba has going for it is their toughbooks otherwise everything else is box store junk made by a plethora of different

manufacturers that put toshiba's name on it.

<p>Michael, is that an XP, Vista or Win7 based HP? Just wondering if the OS made a difference or if it really was just HP's problem with how they handle their additions to the OS.</p>

<p>Well, for starters, here is Laptop Mags "score card": <a href="http://www.laptopmag.com/mobile-life/best-brands-2010.aspx#axzz1637oO236">http://www.laptopmag.com/mobile-life/best-brands-2010.aspx#axzz1637oO236</a> Lenovo was ranked second. Dell was the worst rated of all the brands I am considering.</p>

<p>From Engadget: <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/17/laptop-reliability-survey-asus-and-toshiba-win-hp-fails/">http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/17/laptop-reliability-survey-asus-and-toshiba-win-hp-fails/</a> Notice Toshiba is up in the lead with HP last and Lenovo not far away.</p>

<p>So yeah, depends on where/what stats you look at. Maybe no one makes a good laptop?</p>

<p>Take some advice from someone with a 34 year career in IT, and the first person in Australia to sell an IBM AT in the 1980s.<br>

I have always had at least 5 computers at home. There are 5 adults in my family and we have had all the brands. Laptops and desktops.<br>

As applications became more and more complex, so did good old Windows. But the biggest problem that Microsoft and the Intel brigade had to silve was to make PCs network well. You see Windows....right up to W7 have to be tricked into thinking that remote devices are in fact locally attached. They are also single tasking. This creates potential for software bugs and viruses as most of this networking code is a add on to the core code. Thats why Windows can become unstable.<br>

Two years ago. my second son bought an iMac. We now have 6 in the house and two with 30' monitors. They never crash, they don't catch viruses and they live to be on a network.ie The Internet.. Why is that? Because the underlying code is Unix. Unix was written as a networked operating system from the beginning. Add to that its superior ability to handle graphics without add ons or costly cards, and you have a stable, network happy platform that likes imaging software.<br>

Got the message? Get a MacBook Pro and you will wonder why you didn't make the switch a long time ago.</p>

<p>MacBook Pro is easily twice the price. The value isn't there.</p>

<p>I have yet to have a Win7 or XP machine become unstable. The only reason that Mac is more stable than Windows boils down to the closed system architecture and only supporting a handful of devices versus the very open Windows and their handling of devices. And Macs are graphic superior? Maybe back in the day where they had onboard graphics chips and IBM/Compats had nothing. But now they are both built with 99% the same architecture, and 100% the same architecture on the graphics front. The only reason I could come up with for buying Mac is if you wanted Mac specific software. That said, I love the Adobe suite, and it runs pretty much the same on both systems.</p>

<p>I will however grant you the Unix might be a better core to base an OS off of.</p>

<p>Currently in the house we have 2 XP and 3 Win7 machines, and the only issues we have with networking were a bad wireless card (resolved) and a mis-behaving router (last consumer level Linksys I buy.....).</p>

 

<p>Zach,<br>

If you never move your system from a workstation perspective a laptop is a very poor choice. I consider most laptop displays borderline unusable for photography work, and laptops are MUCH slower than a desktop at an equivalent price level. I would strong suggest you look at getting a desktop. On the upshot desktops have a longer service life than laptops because they are much more reliable.<br>

Stephen,<br>

Windows 7 is now the best desktop operating system on the market. I use it on all my computers, and could not be happier with it. Security online falls on common sense of the user. Windows computers are not "more vulnerable" than Macs, just more targeted.</p>

 

<p>Ryan,</p>

<p>I guess I should clairify, I do move it, just not as much as the netbook. I only take the large laptop into the field when I absolutely need it, or am on an extended trip where I need photo/video processing. Otherwise, the netbook pulls that duty.</p>

<p>As far as the price vs power argument, an i7 desktop is about $200 less than an i7 laptop. Add back in the price of the monitor, and your desktop is losing its advantage quick.</p>

<p>That said, an i7 desktop chip should be faster than it's mobile brothers and have more cores. Not to mention faster all around bus speeds on the desktop should be faster along with the north and south bridges. And faster RAM to boot.</p>

<p>But, is it kind of like owning a Ferrari and never taking it to the track? Sure, it can go wicked fast, but when will it ever be allowed to go that fast?</p>

<p>I have worked with Toshiba and HP laptops and Dell PC's. All have performed well. I know good and bad stories for all of them. So I think you should primarily focus on what you need to get your work done well.<br>

Best for editing is probably still a good PC in combination with a decent monitor. However, I can understand you prefer a laptop. My experiences is that it is hard to find a decent laptop for photo editing because the screen of most laptops isn't made for it. Companies will advertise for a high resolution screen, sometimes they inform you about that the screen is illuminated with LED and has a high refreshing rate, but that is all. They do not tell you color accuracy, dynamic range, or if black is shown as black or just a shade of gray. Hence I would advice you to go to shops and compare which has the best screen. For video sound is important and unfortunately this is also a weak point of most laptops, hence, another reason to go to a shop to compare. Of course you may also want plenty of memory, a decent video card and processor.<br>

Good luck finding the one that suites your purposes,</p>

<p>Leonard</p>

 

<p>Leonard, you are right, I probably should take a day (have to drive 1.5 hours to get to a Best Buy or anything that might have all the brands) and compare. I guess I didn't think about it much, but the monitor on my current HP is actually really good. A little bit dim compared to a standalone, but much nicer looking than even some highly rated monitors.</p>

<p>If you don't move it .. I suggest a custom built PC and a really nice screen.</p>

<p>I have a Lenovo v reliable but I have always had the ultraportables, the screen is not up to big LCDs and you don't have to compare side by side. Not sure how much better the others are thou.</p>

<p>For laptops I vote for Lenovo. I had 5 laptops all used, 4 are Lenovo. Tosh was quite good as well on the 486 I had not as standardised as Lenovo. I mean Lenovo has other stuff like drain holes underneath if you spilt liquid, detects motion the hard drive will park up, spilt resistant keyboard.</p>

<p>Of the three manufacturers you mentioned, Toshiba will have the edge in reliability. But as windows PCs they all use the same components sourced from the same bulk manufacturers...memory, disk drives, keyboards, LCD screens... its a moot point.<br>

IBM recognised that they could not be bothered competing in a market where the gross profit is less than 10%. Thats why they sold their entire PC business to China...hence Lenovo.<br>

HP can't make up their mind if they want to go back to being a big systems and services vendor, or stay where they have never made a profit since the Compaq takeover in 1997. Most of their good engineeing and systems people left at that time and they have struggled from crisis to crisis.<br>

Dell is hunting around for someone to buy them. They have an edge in pricing due to an excellent fulfillment system, but again very small profits.<br>

Toshiba also struggle to be profitable but they at least try to back their brand by making more of their own components than the others.<br>

The sands are shifting in the PC world with the market in western countries not growing and with Apple taking a bigger chunk of market share everytime figures are released. It all started when Apple decided to compete on price and they worked with Microsoft to produce a Mac version of Office that was as good as the Windows version. The PC brigade lost the argument on price competitiveness and software compatibility overnight.<br>

To be honest, I'm glad to be off the Windows platform. It was not an easy decision, but when my son explained to me why the Apple alternative was better for his work...advertising imaging and graphics, and actually showed me, it brought back memories of when I was VP Sales at Sun in Australia for a while and we had Scott McNealy evangelising Unix. The iMacs of today are what Sun could have had in the market had it not been for McNealy being stubborn in sticking to Solaris and their own chip. They should have backed Apple and be a technology partner, but he had blinkers on.</p>

 

<p>Windows is still vastly superior in software depth. However, file compatibility (where the Office argument really holds water) is a wash.</p>

<p>Mac still costs twice the price unless you throw up top of the line workstation class machines vs MBP. But, that said, I think the workstation class laptops (remember the Quadra graphics cards are in those and not even offered in Macs) beat the MBPs. As I did a bit of research, I can only find the MBP being mid-pack in any category, especially screens.</p>

<p>Still, budget is about $1400, which kills any hope of a MBP. The best screens are supposed to be the Lenovo ones on the W700 (often being quoted as better than most desktop screens), however, these are also out of the budget. Perhaps it is better to hold off until summer so I can sink maybe 2k into the laptop and get one of the W700 machines.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As far as the price vs power argument, an i7 desktop is about $200 less than an i7 laptop. Add back in the price of the monitor, and your desktop is losing its advantage quick.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Zach, they're not the same i7 cpu. In terms of performance, the desktop i7 is vastly superior to the mobile i7 cpu found in laptops. Laptops normally come with 5400 rpm drives, desktops do not. However, I do put in 7200rpm drives into laptops to bump up performance but you take a hit on battery life. I usually put them in when re-building the system as I nuke any Dell/HP/ spyware bloatware and other "30 day" trials.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Of the three manufacturers you mentioned, Toshiba will have the edge in reliability.</p>

<p>IBM recognised that they could not be bothered competing in a market where the gross profit is less than 10%. Thats why they sold their entire PC business to China...</p>

<p>HP can't make up their mind if they want to go back to being a big systems and services vendor, or stay where they have never made a profit...</p>

<p>Dell is hunting around for someone to buy them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I couldn't read past the Dell statement.</p>

<p>Dell is not on your list? Having excellent experiences with Dell desktops I bough a laptop a year and a half ago. Not a low end model either as it cost over a grand. Now, I can live with it, but, it sucks. It is cheaply built, clearly Dell has gone cheap, I assume to be more price competitive. Mine had the dreaded jumping cursor (Google jumping cursor). Tried all recommendations. Finally after a year, a software fix, sort of fixed it. My kids both have MacBook Pros. Even though more expensive they are well worth the extra expense. The Mac trackpad is far superior. </p>

<p>I am not trying to convert a PC user to a Mac user, nor start another PC vs. Mac war. Simply stating that this crap Dell laptop has cured me from any future Dell purchases. I am not sure what brand I would go with should I purchase a PC, but there is little doubt that I made a mistake by not spending a few hundred dollars more for a Mac. Certainly there is no guarantee a Mac will be problem free.</p>

<p>Hi Zach<br>

I bought a new Lenovo last year. I'm happy with the performance running Photohsop and all my other apps, but I don't think the screen is the best available. It's quite angle sensitive (more then other laptops in the same pricerange), which really has an impact in photo editing.<br>

Ron</p>

<p>Dell Studio XPS.</p>

<p>When I said Dell was hunting around for someone to buy them, I meant the company, not the product.</p>