Laptops having a metal frame and plastic case is usually a red flag. Metal absorbs energy by deforming, thin Aluminium in particular is easy to dent and unlike most carbon fibre frames it will not bounce back. It also has a high thermal coefficient which means that it's going to get as hot as the rest of the PC regardless of how well its cooled. There's a reason why heatsinks use aluminium and copper as their primary heat spreading materials.
That review actually raises a lot of red flags:
>The manufacturing quality leaves a solid impression, and we were also not able to find any shortcomings when looking in detail. On the other hand the case is primarily composed of simple plastic, which is not very robust in comparison
Which is it? Is it robust or is it not? Having the part of the laptop most likely to be met with damaging force be made of the weakest material is not good at all.
>Even localized pressure doesn't lead to any significant bending. Merely the mesh grid above the keyboard is a bit soft, and dents quite easily.
So the part that you're going to be looking at the most is the part that gets damaged the most easily
>The display lid can be bent considerably, whereby the aluminum surface keeps this within limits, and thus prevents possible damage to the display
This doesn't even make any sense. Display panels aren't meant to be bent at all. Perhaps I'm reading the review incorrectly but this seems like it could be really bad
>What should be noted: Despite their appearance the hinges are not constructed completely out of metal. The plastic is merely covered by a panel.
Plastic hinges are absolutely horrible and break down quickly. Most HP laptops that I've had the pleasure of putting out of their misery have had loose or floppy lids
>With a warranty period of only 12 months with Bring-In-Service, the level of service provided is on the weaker side
HP Laptops have a 25% failure rate within 3 years with about 60% of those occurring within the first two years. Lenovo is better, but not by much.
Anyway, that's what I got out of the review
I usually don't recommend buying a laptop for less than 600-700 bucks. Sub 400 dollar laptops just fail too easily
I'm actually going to recommend this one from Asus instead
Asus's mainstream construction is far superior to any other OEM out there, it's on par with the construction of Dell's high end Alienware lineup and as a result the failure rate on Asus laptops is the lowest in the industry. It's also a little bit more powerful too
2nd gen i3 is actually at the -upper- range of what I need to perform my tasks. I know everyone's all about getting better and better stuff, but I'm currently running on an Athlon XP 2200+ (which scores 1 out of 10 on howfastismypc.com), so anything I get in a store is going to be WAY better. I'm not planning on gaming. The most consumptive thing I would do is to watch a movie in 720p, or stream internet video (maybe 720p or even 480p, I'm not that picky).
I was going to ask where you got your statistic for HPs, but then I did some searching on laptop construction quality and found this:
Which seems to back up your point. I read an important point elsewhere, that companies that get all the accolade, are often praised for their higher-end, not lower-end, products. Which would explain why HP has gotten 3rd in "best laptop companies" two years in a row.
I will definitely keep your recommendation for Asus in mind, especially since that article put them at the top. As for a processor, I think an AMD A4, or an intel i3 (1st or 2nd gen) will suit me fine.
My logic behind going with a slightly better laptop is that while an i3 might be at the higher end of what you want to do now, it may not be at all suitable for what you want to do 2 years from now. Keeping future usage in mind is important when buying PCs
Sound logic! I honestly think that an i3 2nd gen would last me a good 5 years--if the laptop itself does, that is.
For reference, I am currently running on an Athlon XP 2200+, which came out 10 years ago. :-) And, I've read that computers overall are expected to have slower turnover than they did in the 90's and 00's...I'm guessing because technology is hitting the ceiling of what the majority of people want to be able to do. But I suppose there will always be current gamers to keep things advancing. :-)