ASUS' N82Jv: Jack-Of-All-Trades
by Jarred Walton on September 11, 2010 11:10 PM ESTA Mobile Land of Confusion
We mentioned earlier that ASUS could probably benefit from a bit of simplification and consolidation in their mobile lineup. Let's discuss that a bit more. A simplified lineup is something Apple does very well: they have the standard MacBook, a Pro version with a better LCD and chassis, and then two larger Pro laptops that add switchable graphics. There's little confusion over what's what, though obviously there are a few gaps that Apple doesn't quite cover.
In contrast, ASUS has at least six categories of laptops, plus the Eee PC line. They have lines for Business, Gaming, Multimedia, Superior Mobility, Versatility, and the nebulous "Special Edition", and there are multiple overlapping products. Without delving into the spec sheets, can anyone quickly tell the difference between the B, G, K, N, P, and U-series offerings? Off hand, we'd guess that B is for Business, P is for Professional, G is for Gaming, and U is for Ultraportable (UL = Unlimited); as for N and K, they're pretty much interchangeable with minor style and component differences.
Click to enlarge
While it might be wise to have separate categories for gaming and business, all of the other areas can easily fall into the category of "versatility". We'd also like to see more "business" features in the B/P line, like magnesium alloy frames to go with the spill resistant keyboards. The real issue with the consumer lines (U, K, and N) is that they all have a few attractive features, but no single laptop combines the best aspects into one unit.
The U-series is crippled by its use of the anemic G 310M GPU, which will hopefully go away now that GT 415M is available. On the other hand, the U-series (including UL laptops) get big batteries that allow them to last all day on a single charge, and at least four hours of movie watching. Then we have the K/N series that are typically handicapped with smaller 48Wh batteries. Why not combine the two and satisfy a larger group of users? How much would it cost ASUS to make the 8-cell 84Wh battery standard on the N82Jv and forget about buying 6-cell 48Wh batteries? Sure, pricing might be slightly higher, but it seems like they could still hit $1000 and sell more units.
People seem happy to pay $1000 for the standard MacBook, and we'd have a superior laptop in just about every area for the same price. The N82Jv we're looking at today is pretty much the MacBook equivalent for the Windows world, with different styling, more performance, and a smaller battery. We're okay with the styling, but please fix the battery. Then what we really want is an "N82 Pro" to go up against the MacBook Pro 13. For $1200 they could take the basic design, add a sturdy magnesium alloy frame, and give us a midrange ASUS laptop with a decent LCD for a change. The MacBook Pro line isn't perfect, but it provides users with good performance, a metal chassis, and a quality LCD. We'd love to have a line in the Windows world that we could go to for a similar set of features.
We're not saying every laptop needs to cost $1200, but if we're already spending $1000, give us the option to spend a bit more for some upgrades outside of the CPU/HDD. Give us a sturdy, non-plastic chassis with high contrast LCDs. And if you're ready to go all the way, give us the choice between matte and glossy panels. ASUS has so many options and lines already, but the plethora of options means that even if you do want a certain model, it may not be available in your neck of the woods. So simplify the choices and cut off the low quality features that diminish brand name; besides, we've already got Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc. consumer lines that handle the inexpensive but cheap market quite well.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
View All Comments
Hrel - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
GPU = DX10. Simply foolish to buy that as we near 2011Screen resolution = 1366x768. Seriously?! When will they learn?
Just a personal thing, but I'd prefer a 15" laptop just cause I want a numpad.
Asus if you're reading this:
Screen resolution of 1600x900 or greater. (Preferably a contrast ratio of 500:1 or higher)
Battery size of 60Wh or greater. (Preferably 84Wh)
GPU = Nvidia DX11 with similar performance to the AMD HD5650.
CPU = Intel dual core w/ HT @2Ghz or greater with 3MB L3 cache or greater.
HDD = 7200rpm 320GB or greater. (500GB Seagate MomentusXT hyrbrid drive would be best.)
Don't price it over $1000. Go over to cyberpower.com, they build a similar system to this on a Compal whitebox for under 1K.
Hrel - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
you know, even if they stuck with the "standard" quality screen but upped the resolution I'd be happy. Just offer an upgrade to a better screen for 100 bucks or so. The batter can't give though, anything under 60Wh is ridiculous.Hrel - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
Just to clarify the GPU choice, I'm totally ok running games at 1280x720 on my laptop. High end all "eye candy" on gaming is what my desktop is for. That doesn't mean it's ok to make the screen low resolution. 1600x900 or higher or I won't even look at it.JarredWalton - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
Yeah, but you can't do 1600x900 gaming I think is the rationale. Or something. I got this laptop a couple weeks back, before the DX11 400M announcement, which arguably steals some of the thunder as well. I just really hope the inevitable update can give us the bigger battery, better screen, and at least a 435M. That would be a very sweet laptop, and it shouldn't be hard to take the N82Jv and make those tweaks in less than a month. Sell off the low-end screen in other models and make a nice "N82 Pro".kmmatney - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
The 16:9 display was the worst thing to ever happen to laptops...beginner99 - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
this.16:9 is bascially only useful for games and movies. for browsing or office work it's a pain in the ass. even 16:10 can be annoying for that.
teohhanhui - Wednesday, September 15, 2010 - link
I find 16:10 to be perfect for side-by-side comparison or just for viewing 2 pages of a document at a time.FH123 - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
Screen resolution = 1366x768. Seriously?! When will they learn?This comment scares me. Am I the only one who doesn't value resolution highly? I've used Windows 7 and still found plenty of software not fully optimised for high DPI, so I'd rather stick to the above resolution. I'd simply want a good display in that resolution.
I am the owner of a Thinkpad T410s with a 1440x900 display. Better, right? At least still 16:10? Wrong! Contrast ratio 95:1, black-level 2.9 cd/m2. I've no doubt the Asus' screen is crap, like Jarred says, but there's worse to be found in the high-end business segment. Basically I think I'd kill for the Asus' screen at twice the contrast and 1/3 the black-level!
synaesthetic - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
Windows 7 is designed for a minimum vertical pixel count of 768, so really, 1366x768 should only be present on laptops in the sub-13" size category.This is how I see it...
There's just no point in robbing yourself of more vertical pixels. And fix the "standard netbook resolution" of 1024x600 to actually be 16:10 instead of 16:9.4 or whatever it actually is.
1366x768 is a stupid resolution and deserves to go away.
10": 1024x640
11-12": 1280x800
13-14": 1600x900
15": 1600x900 or 1920x1200
16" and up: 1920x1200
Accept no substitutes.
synaesthetic - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
Correction: 15" should be 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 depending on preference. 1600x900 is the only good 16:9 resolution IMO, and it's pretty much perfect on a 14" panel.