Acriar wrote:Ok I have one of these computers and I must say it sux. I mean the way it plays video games at 30 fps with all the graphics on high just ruins my love for down graded pixelization. Or how I can run Adobe 7 while copying a dvd makes me mad, because I used to love the hangs and stalls I Adobe and I once shared. Or even the fact that here on deployment in the desert, I only have one source of internet connection but it doubles as a hot spot. so my iPod can connect to it wirelessly and share it's internet connection. I mean I was so looking forward to having to download my apps and then sync them through iTunes. But no this thing threw all my hopes and dreams out the window and spat on them. Now I'm stuck with a system that not only plays blu-ray but does so while i'm on skype, yahoo messenger, aim, msn messenger, browsing facebook, converting a video to mp4 format, mixing on virtual dj (music videos at that) and it still has time to transfer and back up my 500mb of movies to my external hard drive for safe keepings. Damn Samgsung and this device. I beg none of you to buy this. It will only ruin the image past laptops have given you. ....be ware of the RC512....be ware of the RC5.......be ware of the R....

Okay, since I'm still unexpectedly awake,... sarcasm becomes you. (That's a compliment).

Bought one of these for the GF earlier this year, it's a pretty awesome laptop. The lower res screen isn't as bad as you would think because it's only 15". The only real failing of this laptop is the battery life. You have to make a custom power profile keeping the CPU at 50% power to get anything over two hours out of it. If you're one of those people that always manage to find an outlet for your laptop, then this thing really is just an awesomely powerful portable desktop!

overpriced ... by about $100 IMO

I don't understand all the complaints about the resolution. 1366x768 is standard for 15" notebooks. It's not at all "low res." You won't notice any pixelation at that resolution on a 15" screen (I'm using one right now and it's quite smooth). It's a bit of an exaggeration to claim you'd see NO difference between 720p and 1080p on a 15" screen but honestly, the difference as it appears to the eye is minimal aside from the small icons and menu bars, which can be adjusted within Windows.

On that note, I don't believe I've ever seen a 1080p screen on a 15" notebook, with the exception of a few VERY expensive gaming laptops. Typically, the highest you'll see on a screen this size is 1600x900 and those laptops tend to cost over $1,000 and drain the battery faster (higher res screens use more power for those who aren't aware).

Also, to the "we had this resolution 15 years ago" crowd...no, we didn't. For one thing, widescreen wasn't standard then so, at best, you would have seen 1024x768 screens, not 1366x768 (although I'm pretty sure laptops didn't even have that in '96). Since these screens weren't as wide and were taller, those 768 horizontal lines would be stretched across a longer area, thus looking worse than a modern 1366x768 screen.

davidmcbeth3 wrote:overpriced ... by about $100 IMO

I challenge you to find even one laptop with those specs, excluding eBay auctions for used items, for under $650.

Oooo, that keyboard looks like a mess. I don't think I could type on that thing!

All this wonderful goodness & they only give you a 5400RPM HDD...??? Come on, I'd spend an extra $10-30 for a standard 7200. And no Bluetooth??? Come on, those adapters can't cost more than $5-15.

unksol wrote:Actually the break point for a laptop is around 17 inches, 18 on a desktop. Obviously not 25 which was not at all what I said.

But it is what stevedog1 said.

unksol wrote:
This is a midrange laptop, and it has an appropriate mid range screen. And you really aren't going to notice the difference. I wouldn't even want 1920x1080 on a screen this small. 1600x900 wouldn't be bad, but it'd cost.more and you wouldn't notice a huge quality difference.

tljx wrote:
Typically, the highest you'll see on a screen this size is 1600x900 and those laptops tend to cost over $1,000

I'd argue that the screen is on the low-end of appropriate. To compare, both the HP from 2010 and the Lenovo from 2008, both with 1600x900 or greater screen resolution came in at a hair over $700, i.e. well within midrange laptop pricing.

unksol wrote:And you really aren't going to notice the difference. I wouldn't even want 1920x1080 on a screen this small. 1600x900 wouldn't be bad, but it'd cost.more and you wouldn't notice a huge quality difference.

I'd beg to differ. 1920x1080 would be a little high, but there is a definite difference in usability just between a half-HD screen and a 1600x900 screen, especially if you need to have multiple documents open at once for any reason.

whatsamattaU wrote:Okay, since I'm still unexpectedly awake,... sarcasm becomes you. (That's a compliment).

Roger,
Thanks for your comment and to those of you who have questions about this laptop feel free to ask...
Just a couple of other Un-awsome things:
It has the ability to charge your usb devices without being turned on
It does do 1080p if you're using a external monitor. Which I feel makes up for the display only being 720p.
In my experience battery life is 3+ hours compared to what others are saying. But of course if you're trying to play game that requires hard core graphic or playing a blu-ray that requires your disk drive to spin up decreases that time drops....uhh duhhh...but watching movies, browsing the net, ohh and even video editing I've gotten fine battery life.
One last un-awsome thing...if any of you are aware of what wi-max is...uh yeah this freakin thing is wi-max ready too...i'm sure that would completely deter you all from buying it now....

I have an Asus gaming laptop with a 1366x768 display. The reason they do this is so you have a reasonable size screen for portability. When I'm at home I plug the HDMI into a 25" 1080p screen. I wouldn't have it any other way.

jrobbs wrote:Why do they keep releasing PCs with kick-ass state of the art CPU, decent "gaming" GPU and ridiculously low-res screen? 768 horizontal resolution was commonplace 15 years ago. 16:9 sucks for everything but movies and even then, bump it up to 1080p!
In other words, I'll pass.

Added by mod so everyone will not need to correct:

I also agree the resolution is too low. My 15" laptop display is currently is 1680 x 1050 (Compaq 8510p). I went to buy a new laptop and the salesman promised me that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference if I bought their 1366 x 768 laptop. HE WAS WRONG. I returned it the same day.
If all you do is watch movies or play games maybe. But for the things you wou would actually use a computer for (especially MS Office applications or graphics editing) their was a big difference.

Acriar wrote:Roger,
Thanks for your comment and to those of you who have questions about this laptop feel free to ask...
Just a couple of other Un-awsome things:
It has the ability to charge your usb devices without being turned on
It does do 1080p if you're using a external monitor. Which I feel makes up for the display only being 720p.
In my experience battery life is 3+ hours compared to what others are saying. But of course if you're trying to play game that requires hard core graphic or playing a blu-ray that requires your disk drive to spin up decreases that time drops....uhh duhhh...but watching movies, browsing the net, ohh and even video editing I've gotten fine battery life.
One last un-awsome thing...if any of you are aware of what wi-max is...uh yeah this freakin thing is wi-max ready too...i'm sure that would completely deter you all from buying it now....

Could you tell us the Windows Experience Index Scores please?

tack2900 wrote:But is it Mac compatible? (insert sarcastic trendy mac comment here)

I'd be lyin' (lion) if I said it were!

How on earth do you have a laptop spec'd this nicely but only put a 1366x768 res display in it? Hell, my work laptop has a 1600x900 LCD!

Acriar wrote:Roger,
Thanks for your comment and to those of you who have questions about this laptop feel free to ask...
Just a couple of other Un-awsome things:
It has the ability to charge your usb devices without being turned on
It does do 1080p if you're using a external monitor. Which I feel makes up for the display only being 720p.
In my experience battery life is 3+ hours compared to what others are saying. But of course if you're trying to play game that requires hard core graphic or playing a blu-ray that requires your disk drive to spin up decreases that time drops....uhh duhhh...but watching movies, browsing the net, ohh and even video editing I've gotten fine battery life.
One last un-awsome thing...if any of you are aware of what wi-max is...uh yeah this freakin thing is wi-max ready too...i'm sure that would completely deter you all from buying it now....

That's a good copy...

I too am deployed and have the smaller brother of this laptop (the QX410, which is in the same line) and share the same thoughts on all you have mentioned, with these additions... It has some crazy quick start hybernate ability on it that when I close it and it goes to sleep, and then I reopen it, it is back up and running at full speed right where I left off in only 3-5 seconds. ...Really?! It takes me longer than that to remember what I was doing the last time I was using it. The thing makes me feel like I'm slow. Also, I admit, when I first started using this laptop, I preferred my old single gesture touchpad, and unseperated keypad over this island thing... but now that I've gotten use to it, I find myself aggrivated using other hardware. Arrgggg! When I have to use my government laptop (which is a nice one) I find myself only wanting to get back to the Samsung.

I agree with your Assessment.

Charlie Mike

xXAaronXx wrote:Could you tell us the Windows Experience Index Scores please?

Component - Subscored

• Processor 7.4
  
• Memory(Ram) 7.4
  
• Graphics 5.8 <----Base
  
• Gaming Graphics 6.5
  
• Primary Hard Disk 5.9
  

obelinux wrote:You can get a new HP dv6t with the same config for 775. Is this really that good a deal?

Hard to say without personal hands on. It's personal pref. But for me, the build of the Samsung is superior to HP. It feels better, it responds better. Also, you never know the future, but my fail rate with HP products is far greater than my Samsung products.

This is the kind of laptop that makes me wonder what the heck computer manufacturers are thinking. This laptop is a perfect fit for users that use their computer as an entertainment platform (mid-range gaming, HD movies, etc), but want to have the option to go mobile as well.

The absolute killer is the max screen resolution. I see a few people mentioning that it's rare to find a 15 inch monitor with a 1080 resolution, but my Dell D830 from 2007 does and you'd be surprised how noticeable the difference is if you're planning to use this for gaming or watching movies.

This completely destroys the point of this laptop. With lower screen resolution, it's a big hit for HD video and gaming which otherwise would have been this laptop's strong point. Performance will be good but performance without quality isn't worth much. This just isn't worth the money if you need to buy an external monitor just to get the most out of it... Might as well build a low to mid-range gaming PC and get better performance, get a tablet or netbook for mobility. Add the fact that this is a refurb, and what appears to be a good buy is a good bleh.

unksol wrote: And you really aren't going to notice the difference. ... 1600x900 wouldn't be bad, but it'd cost.more and you wouldn't notice a huge quality difference.

Please do not tell me what I am going to notice.

I have a laptop of similar size and with resolution akin to what's offered on this model. I notice its lack of screen real estate all the time. I like to have a lot of windows open at once, and there simply isn't enough room for that at too low a resolution. I do not watch movies on my laptop. I have better viewing options for that.

sprousehouse wrote:That's a good copy...

I too am deployed and have the smaller brother of this laptop (the QX410, which is in the same line) and share the same thoughts on all you have mentioned, with these additions... It has some crazy quick start hybernate ability on it that when I close it and it goes to sleep, and then I reopen it, it is back up and running at full speed right where I left off in only 3-5 seconds. ...Really?! It takes me longer than that to remember what I was doing the last time I was using it. The thing makes me feel like I'm slow. Also, I admit, when I first started using this laptop, I preferred my old single gesture touchpad, and unseperated keypad over this island thing... but now that I've gotten use to it, I find myself aggrivated using other hardware. Arrgggg! When I have to use my government laptop (which is a nice one) I find myself only wanting to get back to the Samsung.

I agree with your Assessment.

Charlie Mike

Yeah I know I can't stand that feature, now what excuse do I have when someone wants a movie and I don't feel like doing it? "I would man but my computer take to long to bo..." - "LIAR!!!!" - "Damnit"

chillipalmer wrote:This laptop could handle anything a college student could throw at it, save for intense graphic design, autocad, etc.

Has Autocad really gotten this bloated?! Back in the 4 Megabytes of VRAM days, and prior, it was essential to have a dedicated video card and an expensive computer, but I remember the transition when firms could get away with buying [way] less powerful computers because dedicated graphics got so far advanced with gaming.

Sorry for the aside, but looking at this computer, it looked strong, and I figured it would have no problem with ACAD. Combine the specs with its full numpad and you get a lot of potential for CAD glory (I used to HATE Autocad on the number row only laptops).

lol @ the fighting regarding screen res. Essentially, it seems to me that we are in different camps. Those that use their laptops for media probably won't care about this laptop's crappy res.

However, those of that are coders, writers, or really anything that we need to jam tons of text on the screen at once will not be happy with this res. When i was in college (01-05) i had an HP with a 15" 1600x1200 native screen. It was awesome - i could fit a C++ source next to the header file that i was calling functions for. In '07, i purchased a new toshiba with 1280x800. I could barely fit a webpage on it! This is not about things "just fitting" on the screen - this is about them appearing in their native resolution without having to "fix" every part of the OS where you actually want to see stuff!

Long story short, those of you that know this is a crappy res already know why, and don't need to argue. Those of you that are arguing it is fine must only watch movies and browse a few sites. There's no need to fight here, its like muscle car enthusiasts telling the guy buying the subcompact for his A-B commute why that car isn't good for him!

marisano wrote:Please do not tell me what I am going to notice.

I have a laptop of similar size and with resolution akin to what's offered on this model. I notice its lack of screen real estate all the time. I like to have a lot of windows open at once, and there simply isn't enough room for that at too low a resolution. I do not watch movies on my laptop. I have better viewing options for that.

No one is arguing screen real estate is so close you won't notice. Hence why ALL the posts saying you won't notice the difference mention it. It is a given.

They are pointing out that the quality of the display does not noticeably change going from 720p to 1080p on a 15" display.

Having an expensive(read: $1100) 15.4" laptop myself that is WUXGA(1920x1200 for those too lazy to look it up) as well as a 15.4" laptop that is 720p, I can assure you, this resolution is perfectly adequate. The WUXGA resolution is absolutely worthless for this size laptop. If you want the extra screen real estate, get a 17" laptop, a desktop, or an external monitor for your smaller laptop.

Once again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this resolution for this screen. And as many people have pointed out, getting a higher resolution screen costs significantly more(such as my $1200 one). And the person above who mentioned their older Dell D830: it STARTED at $200 more than this model and if compared to an equivalent of these specs from then had far worse components.

As for the HP DV6T being equivalent and around the same price... Do you really want one of the worst laptop brands over something respectable like Samsung? Check the failure rates on HP laptops, it is appalling.

This is an extremely good buy.

just recieved a BRAND NEW Samsung laptop, looks beautiful- DOA after 3 days due to many issues including failed wireless. using as a paperweight. Probaby a LOT of refurb inventory out there, mine may be included soon as well.....

jrobbs wrote:Why do they keep releasing PCs with kick-ass state of the art CPU, decent "gaming" GPU and ridiculously low-res screen? 768 horizontal resolution was commonplace 15 years ago. 16:9 sucks for everything but movies and even then, bump it up to 1080p!
In other words, I'll pass.

Added by mod so everyone will not need to correct:

Couldn't agree more... wish I had this CPU and GPU in my toshiba with awesome screen.

marisano wrote:Please do not tell me what I am going to notice.

I have a laptop of similar size and with resolution akin to what's offered on this model. I notice its lack of screen real estate all the time. I like to have a lot of windows open at once, and there simply isn't enough room for that at too low a resolution. I do not watch movies on my laptop. I have better viewing options for that.

Thank you. Some people get it.
The diff between 1366x768 and 1680x1050 on my 7 y/o laptop is night & day. Just browsing the web, (including Woot!) is really annoying at 768 vertical. Most web browsers (and productivity apps) have menus, and tool-bars and status bars, etc. The leave little room for actual content. At 16:9 (1366x768,1600x900,1920x1080), you end up with a bunch of unused screen space on the sides and not enough vertical space. You're constantly scrolling to see anything. 16:9 is great for movies, but pretty useless for anything else.

Acriar wrote:Component - Subscored

• Processor 7.4
  
• Memory(Ram) 7.4
  
• Graphics 5.8 <----Base
  
• Gaming Graphics 6.5
  
• Primary Hard Disk 5.9
  

I was expecting much better results. I just bought a new Acer off of newegg for $489 and was considering returning it and getting this when I saw it, but there is such a tiny margin of difference between those scores and mine:

6.9
7.2
5.1
6.2
5.8

Also my Acer is a 17.3" with the slightly higher: 1600 x 900 display (and yes I notice a difference)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834215120

jrobbs wrote:Thank you. Some people get it.
The diff between 1366x768 and 1680x1050 on my 7 y/o laptop is night & day. Just browsing the web, (including Woot!) is really annoying at 768 vertical. Most web browsers (and productivity apps) have menus, and tool-bars and status bars, etc. The leave little room for actual content. At 16:9 (1366x768,1600x900,1920x1080), you end up with a bunch of unused screen space on the sides and not enough vertical space. You're constantly scrolling to see anything. 16:9 is great for movies, but pretty useless for anything else.

this can be true, but if your on a webpage like this, just zoom the page to fill the sides.

chillipalmer wrote:What do you mean if it had...? This laptop could handle anything a college student could throw at it, save for intense graphic design, autocad, etc. It has one of the fastest mobile processors out there, 6 GB (high for many laptops), a discrete GPU, and a spacious HDD. Its plenty for all but extreme gamers (who should be using a desktop anyway).

I completely agree with you, but I would also offer that even Autocad, and basic Adobe Creative Suite tasks should be cake on it as well. I've been running those without issue on a laptop with a good deal less muscle than this one.

[quote postid="4582945" user="davidmcbeth3"]overpriced ... by about $100

Really? Please share with us all on where we can find these mystical prices you speak of?

Cheapest I found is on an eBay refurb for $899. This is a steal at this price.

Could anyone help me make a decision on this? Im not familiar with the wimax and Ive tried to search for info and still dont "get it". Heres my situation:

My father works 24 hour shifts and he and his colleagues want "cable tv". They are not allowed to use the government computer nor are they allowed to have a dish there. Ok...truth is, they arent supposed to have cable at all...but they are trying to find a way to do it. My sister suggested a wi-fi card with a "sling box" (??)

All of this is unfamiliar to me, but Im trying to help. Is WiMax something that would solve this? If we bought this laptop, would this be a better option? I know the wifi card has a monthly fee. Does WiMax? I do know that they too many cookies to use anyones cell phone to tether because everyone on different shifts should be able to use it and leaving ones cell phone is not an option.

Any advice or direction on where to learn?? Thanks in advance!!

This deal is certainly tempting. Great CPU and GPU with 6GB of ram for that price is not a common thing. Not to mention its a good brand.
I would say its priced just right for a refurb as this can easily sell for $1,000 or more.

Alas my bank account would never forgive me for making the unneeded purchase. But for those currently in the market for a laptop here is a chance to get a flawless one at a great price.

I bought this laptop from bestbuy 2 months ago and it's ok, as had been stated the graphics processor is a bit underpowered for the rest of the specs. I also have an issue of it overheating and shutting down when gaming. It's a nice laptop for every day use.

If I didn't already have a great laptop this would be a no-brainer purchase for me. This is a great deal. 1GB dedicated video means its not going to be a slow poke on gaming, as well as the 4 core i7 cpu.

This is a great laptop. The tactile keyboard keys would take some getting used to but heavy owners would like this better as they tend to stay cleaner and last longer than traditional notebook keyboards.

xXAaronXx wrote:Also my Acer is a 17.3" with the slightly higher: 1600 x 900 display (and yes I notice a difference

It's a much larger screen, and you probably do.

And despite scores, this Quad Core i7 with 1gb Nvidia GPU will run CIRCLES around your NEW $489 Acer, and yes there is a HUGE difference despite your, so said, close scores.

Others have already echoed this sentiment, but I'll say it again just to emphasize. The resolution on this is too low.

My 14" laptop has the same resolution as this guy, and I sometimes with it had higher resolution. At 15" and above, 1440x900 is a minimum, and even then, it could be better. I feel so strongly about this I would take a laptop with a better screen and lower other hardware specs for the same price.

Don't have three quarters of a thousand dollars of disposable income for this disposable laptop.

I have grown to like Samsung stuff. Good quality and better prices than Sony. As some know, they are becoming the king of TVs and now tabs and pcs, cellphones. If I needed a laptop right now, It would be a Samsung or a Macbook. Remember, Samsung makes components for Apple.

kinsaidd wrote:Hello, everybody, ...

Goodbye, spammer.

Hi!

Perhaps can someone from Woot or someone knowledgeable about it, clear the status of some situation about Best-Buy having to collect all bought laptops of this model for some kind of hardware error?

see http://forum.notebookreview.com/samsung/550003-samsung-rc512.html for more details.

Aren't these in Woot some of these collected laptops which were found defective?

(I think is essential to clear this question before buying, which I'm VERY interested into doing).

Thanks!