ThinkPads are Ruggedized Machines

Message

#1 Post by **ryengineer** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:27 pm

Why buy a thinkpad and not other brands? see what Matt has to say.

dsigma6 · #2 Post by **dsigma6** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:17 am

Is the author joking?? I think saying that a ThinkPad is almost as good or better than two levels of Toughbook is laughable.

mattbiernat · #3 Post by **mattbiernat** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 2:32 pm

dsigma6 wrote:Is the author joking?? I think saying that a ThinkPad is almost as good or better than two levels of Toughbook is laughable.

you have to understand that they are the ones who did the testing.

dsigma6 · #4 Post by **dsigma6** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 2:35 pm

Well of course he'll be biased, but come on...

mattbiernat · #5 Post by **mattbiernat** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:01 pm

yeah i know. that's why it looked to me more like marketing rather than a real test. but you know what... whatever gets them more people to buy thinkpads. that way maybe we can hope that they will become less greedy and more thinking on how to improve the current machines.

#6 Post by **ryengineer** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 4:22 pm

Matt wrote:

Our machines would equal or better Panasonic’s durability vs. their “Semi” and “Business” rugged machines. Depending on the application, a ThinkPad may even be a good match vs. a “Fully” rugged machine. There are some tests where Panasonic does have an advantage like “rain” or “low temperature,” but for many uses, a ThinkPad will work just fine.

This statement is neither joke nor biased. The author does clarify and admits the superiority of Toughbooks but it's fairly true that the newer thinkpads are more tough, robust, structured, consistent and persistent than before. Everything these people quote on lenovo blogs are first verified, tested and then stated.

qviri · #7 Post by **qviri** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:10 pm

ryengineer wrote:Everything these people quote on lenovo blogs are first verified, tested and then stated.

Verified by whom?

mattbiernat · #8 Post by **mattbiernat** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:45 pm

qviri wrote:
ryengineer wrote:Everything these people quote on lenovo blogs are first verified, tested and then stated.
Verified by whom?

exactly. i really hate criticizing lenovo. i think they did very good job with my T60 (except minor comsetic issues). however when it comes to making an experiment they were biased. in order to make their experiment not biased they would have had to design it as a double blinded experiment.

#9 Post by **ryengineer** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:52 pm

qviri wrote:Verified by whom?

Lenovo, these tests are not always performed by lenovo.

qviri · #10 Post by **qviri** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:51 pm

Oh, I misunderstood your use of "verified". Sorry.

#11 Post by **tomh009** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:15 pm

To add some real data to this discussion, IDG Sweden did some notebook torture testing about two months ago, and while the T60 did not match the fully ruggedized CF-29, it wasn't that far behind, either (90 points for Panasonic, 79 for T60 -- and 53 for Dell).

Article here:
http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.108267

Some discussion in this thread:
http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=44713

And a summary of the scores ... you can note that most of the difference between the Panasonic and the T60 was in the port torture test.

Port durability
Acer TravelMate 6463: 13/20
Dell Latitude D620: 8/20
Lenovo ThinkPad T60: 9/20
LG F1: 7/20
Panasonic Toughbook CF-29: 20/20
Toshiba Satellite Pro A120: 10/20

Wear and scratching
Acer: 8/15
Dell: 10/15
ThinkPad: 7/15
LG: 5/15
Panasonic: 10/15
Toshiba: 9/15

Heat and cold
Acer: 10/15
Dell: 15/15
ThinkPad: 15/15
LG: 10/15
Panasonic: 15/15
Toshiba: 10/15

Liquids
Acer: 15/20
Dell: 13/20
ThinkPad: 20/20
LG: 13/20
Panasonic: 15/20
Toshiba: 15/20

Dropping and crushing
Acer: 20/30
Dell: 7/30
ThinkPad: 28/30
LG: 15/30
Panasonic: 30/30
Toshiba: 10/30

Total score
Acer: 66/100
Dell: 53/100
ThinkPad: 79/100
LG: 50/100
Panasonic: 90/100
Toshiba: 54/100

ptantra · #12 Post by **ptantra** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:43 am

mattbiernat wrote:in order to make their experiment not biased they would have had to design it as a double blinded experiment.

How do you "double blind" a laptop torture test?

dsigma6 · #13 Post by **dsigma6** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:49 pm

The results for Liquids are surprising.

andyP · #14 Post by **andyP** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:12 pm

I watched the videos, (didn't understand a single spoken word), but he seems to have been fair in carrying out his tests.

If that bloke comes within 1 mile of my shop I'm calling the police

#15 Post by **gator** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:52 pm

I was surprised to see that he could stand on the thinkpad and NOTHING happened to the LCD.

#16 Post by **tomh009** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:33 pm

andyP wrote:I watched the videos, (didn't understand a single spoken word), but he seems to have been fair in carrying out his tests.

If that bloke comes within 1 mile of my shop I'm calling the police

I loved that Windows pop-up message in the first video: "your system may be at risk!"

pianowizard · #17 Post by **pianowizard** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:00 pm

tomh009 wrote:To add some real data to this discussion, IDG Sweden did some notebook torture testing about two months ago

How many units of each model were tested? As we all know, even for the exact same model, different units can differ a lot in build quality, so it's important to have a high enough "n" for each model, and express the results as average ± standard deviation. If they tested only one unit, this data are almost garbage.

#18 Post by **GomJabbar** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:25 pm

pianowizard wrote:If they tested only one unit, this data are almost garbage.

Personally, I disagree. There should not be enough variation in one model to significantly affect torture tests. If they tested 50 of the same model and only reported the results from the unit that survived the best, then you would have more of a case. Otherwise, it is the luck of the draw, and the results could be slightly skewed either for or against.

However, one factor that could make a difference is how repeatable the torture tests really are. If you throw 20 notebooks against a wall and check survivability, that is obviously not a very good test, and many units would be needed to average the results. Controlled testing would make the results quite a bit more consistant and reliable.

pianowizard · #19 Post by **pianowizard** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:44 pm

GomJabbar wrote:There should not be enough variation in one model to significantly affect torture tests.

But there is. Look at how often people on this forum disagree on the quality of a certain model.

In the empirical sciences, experiments with an "n" of 1 have a near-zero chance of getting published in a decent peer-reviewed journal.

mattbiernat · #20 Post by **mattbiernat** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:10 pm

ptantra wrote:
mattbiernat wrote:in order to make their experiment not biased they would have had to design it as a double blinded experiment.
How do you "double blind" a laptop torture test?

lol! you are right I meant single blinded.

mattbiernat · #21 Post by **mattbiernat** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:13 pm

pianowizard wrote: But there is. Look at how often people on this forum disagree on the quality of a certain model.

people may have different perception of what is a "good" build quality.

#22 Post by **GomJabbar** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:16 pm

pianowizard wrote:Look at how often people on this forum disagree on the quality of a certain model.

In the empirical sciences, experiments with an "n" of 1 have a near-zero chance of getting published in a decent peer-reviewed journal.

That is often more a difference in individual perception and how a particular notebook is handled than anything else. Which software is installed and how it is installed also is a factor.

Regarding procedures used for published peer-reviewed articles - they have their place - but such procedures are not necessary for more casually produced experiments to have validity.

If you believe that the quality between individual units of a particular model varies widely, then you will put little faith in the test results of a few or only one unit. I do not believe the quality between individual units of a particular model vary that much (at least of those units manufactured over a relatively short time frame). Sure, as a model matures, tweaks are made to individual components, firmware, and software to improve the model's quality and reliability (generally speaking), as deficiencies come to light.

pianowizard · #23 Post by **pianowizard** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:18 pm

mattbiernat wrote:people may have different perception of what is a "good" build quality.

GomJabbar wrote:That is often more a difference in individual perception and how a particular notebook is handled than anything else.

That accounts for a portion of the disagreements, but not all. Even the two R50p's I currently own aren't exactly the same. One (the one from Thinkpadworld) flexes slightly more.

#24 Post by **tomh009** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:46 pm

pianowizard wrote:In the empirical sciences, experiments with an "n" of 1 have a near-zero chance of getting published in a decent peer-reviewed journal.

Commercial tests of any kind rarely qualify for publication in peer-reviewed journals -- budgets and timelines don't allow for that level of rigour. That doesn't make them garbage.

#25 Post by **tomh009** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:49 pm

pianowizard wrote:How many units of each model were tested? As we all know, even for the exact same model, different units can differ a lot in build quality, so it's important to have a high enough "n" for each model, and express the results as average ± standard deviation. If they tested only one unit, this data are almost garbage.

I have watched the video, and read the story (with my highly limited Swedish skills). While only one of each notebook was tested, the tester clearly took care to make the tests repeatable.

Of course, if you can point to more scientific test data (as opposed to vendor marketing materials) that could shed more light on this topic ...

pianowizard · #26 Post by **pianowizard** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:40 am

tomh009 wrote:That doesn't make them garbage.

I agree. That's why I said "almost garbage".

Cuda · #27 Post by **Cuda** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:52 am

Yeah, Thinkpads sure are tough, I broke my T23 by PICKING IT UP!!!! Arrow points to damage.

http://www.pbase.com/davedent/image/78225422.jpg

MOD EDIT: Picture changed to link.

pianowizard · #28 Post by **pianowizard** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:00 am

Cuda wrote:Yeah, Thinkpads sure are tough, I broke my T23 by PICKING IT UP!!!!

Your T23 is around 5 to 6 years old; I bet it was more rugged when new. Also, the T6* is more rugged than the T2*.

Eric Giles · #29 Post by **Eric Giles** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:58 am

Cuda wrote:Yeah, Thinkpads sure are tough, I broke my T23 by PICKING IT UP!!!! Arrow points to damage.
img]http://www.pbase.com/davedent/image/78225422.jpg[/img

Looks like you probably picked it up by that front corner, possibly by one hand. If you do that over time, that plastic will get weak and it can/will break.

If that is not what you have been doing then my apologies-but if it was, then remember picking them up by one hand on one of the front corners is not a good thing.

Cuda · #30 Post by **Cuda** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:34 am

Eric Giles wrote:
Cuda wrote:

Yeah, I'm sure that's what caused it, but a laptop should be designed to handle being picked up that way. Or have a sticker that says "No handhold" on the corners!!! I have a old Toughbook I bought cheap in eBay and I can pick it up anyway or drive a truck over it and not hurt it!!! P.S I fixed the broken pic link, I've never seen the end brackets go away like that before???

ThinkPads are Ruggedized Machines

ThinkPads are Ruggedized Machines

Who is online