Review: Lenovo N20p Chromebook with touchscreen for consumers

Review: Lenovo N20p Chromebook with touchscreen for consumers

Summary: Lenovo has entered the Chromebook consumer space with a touchscreen model.

SHARE:
52

 |  Image 1 of 7

  • Thumbnail 1
  • Thumbnail 2
  • Thumbnail 3
  • Thumbnail 4
  • Thumbnail 5
  • Thumbnail 6
  • Thumbnail 7

Topics: Mobility, Google, Laptops, Reviews

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

52 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Umm.. sorry... but this is pretty dumb

    What is the purpose of a touch screen when it has its main access to non-touch apps? This sort of defies logic and really can cause confusion for everyone, never mind the poor user experience it will produce. Most (if not all) Web apps are non-touch aware and developed. They are developed for keyboard/mouse use, hence this doesn't really make much sense.
    BruinB88
    • I'll chime in here

      A touchscreen would be good for games. You might say why not get a tablet of some sort but I prefer having the chromebook. Playing angry birds isn't fun with a touchpad. This would be for young kids games, since I don't really play them. I didn't buy it for that but I probably would have gotten the touchscreen version of the Acer C720.
      Also when browsing, the version of chrome used allows two finger swiping browser forward and back. This would be nice to just swipe on screen.
      drwong
    • And Pixelated Screen

      What is the point of having an 11.6" screen with this low of resolution. At 135 ppi you will be able to see individual pixels. After a couple hours you will end up with a headache.
      MichaelInMA
      • Pretty standard

        That resolution and screen size are identical to most sub-$1000 11" laptops including the MacBook Air.
        chefgon
    • Not designed for the OS

      It's just a dumbed down version of the same hardware designed for Windows 8. The touch screen just came along for the ride.
      Buster Friendly
  • Umm.. sorry... but this is pretty dumb

    What is the purpose of a touch screen when it has its main access to non-touch apps? This sort of defies logic and really can cause confusion for everyone, never mind the poor user experience it will produce. Most (if not all) Web apps are non-touch aware and developed. They are developed for keyboard/mouse use, hence this doesn't really make much sense.
    BruinB88
  • 7/10?

    I wonder what it would take for a Chromebook to get a 'bad' score. Nothing about this review was 'good'. $329 for a Chromebook is a good price? Since when? The touch screen was reviewed but added very little value.

    Chromebooks reek of a scam job. Manufacturers can take their left over, outdated materials, put Chrome OS on it and still get an excellent review. Around 6 months ago, I bought a Toshiba laptop with a AMD a6 processor, 4g ram, 15.6 inch touch screen, 500 gb hd, for $379. It has 3 usb out, hdmi, optical drive, vga, and an Ethernet port. Just based on the hardware alone, how in the world can this Chromebook ever be considered a good deal?
    retnep
  • I look at the first spec

    "Intel Celeron"...stopped reading after that.
    Sean Foley
    • Don't forget

      Intel Celeron with 2gb of ram and 16gb hard drive. Seriously.
      retnep
      • Don't Forget....

        Intel Haswell Celeron (Celerons are not as bad as they used to be)

        16GB Hard Drive SSD (Small because mostly Web and Cloud based)

        2GB RAM (Plenty for ChromeOS as its not a resource hog)

        Not too bad after all then.
        5735guy
        • That's a good joke

          "2GB RAM (Plenty for ChromeOS as its not a resource hog)"

          All forms of Chrome consume RAM like it's an unlimited resource.
          Michael Alan Goff
          • All forms of Chrome consume RAM ...

            Not compared with Windows, they don't.

            But then, you've never really looked at a Chromebook, so I guess you're the expert.
            Heenan73
          • And of course what would these blogs be without

            a "rebuttal" from our own Google fanboi, Heenan73!

            You may never use facts, but no one can claim you aren't consistent.
            William.Farrel
          • Funny Willy!

            I'd have said exactly the same thing from one of our main Microsoft fanboi's.. always guaranteed to show up on non MS stories to tell people how much the non microsoft stuff sucks.
            frankieh
          • For the sake of honesty

            A) You're right that Chrome and Chrome OS both use less RAM than Windows. That's understandable, though, when you realize that one is an OS and the other is a browser (albeit a super up browser that can run offline web apps). Even ChromeOS is little more than the Chrome browser on top of the Linux kernel. If Windows used less RAM than that, it'd be rather sad.

            B) I did have a Chromebook for about 4 months before I ended up being able to get myself a replacement for my laptop. It was nice, but it had some issues. The screen was rather shoddy, and ended up breaking down about two or three months after my sister started using it. The 2GB of RAM meant that I dare not have a lot of tabs open if I wanted to use Adobe Flash in any way, lest the other tabs start to reload. I also didn't like the lack of a backlit keyboard, but that was minor.

            It got great battery life, though.
            Michael Alan Goff
    • The N2830 is the chip found on low cost Windows laptops, and slower.....

      ....than the icore 2955U Haswell Celeron chip $199 Acer C720 Chromebook, and most others. The article is in error when it says that the CPU in this device is a Haswell Celeron - it is an Atom chip architecture and although improved over previous Atoms, it is only about 2/3rds the speed of the 2955U chip in the $199 Acer C720 - or midway in performance between the 2 year old ARM Exynos chip found in the 2 year old Samsung ARM Chromebook 3, although it is a lot more efficient on battery life than the 2955U.

      @Sean Foley

      The N2830 is an improved Atom processor, whereas the the 2955U is a cut down i3 core with less cache and able to run fewer threads.

      I think you have shat your pants when shilling this point, so to speak, because the processor is the same one that most low cost Windows pro laptops/hybrids with a reasonable battery life, and if as you claim, it is too slow for the lightweight ChromeOS, then Windows will run as slow as molasses on the Windows laptops that are trying to compete with Chromebooks. I say it is perfectly fine for Chromebooks, or for Windows running no more than just a browser or maybe Word on its own, but to run more than that, I would agree with you that the N2830 would be slow.
      Mah
      • Wow. An informative response.

        Kudos. Trying not to fit in? :-)
        daboochmeister
  • I can see Google and Lenovo sitting around the review table

    Google - "So why aren't people snapping up theses Chromebooks?"

    Lenovo - "Hmmm. It can't be the price - any lower and we'd be giving them away. We almost are, but not quite"

    Google - "So why aren't they outselling Windows 8 PC's and Macs?"

    Lenovo - "We have a proven track record of hardware, so it can't be that."

    Google - "I know! Touch screens! yeah, We know they LOVE ChromeOS, but really, really, want a touch screen. - lack of a touch screen in your products is keeping these from outselling everything else out there! That has to be, there can be no other explanation! Put touch screens in all your Chromebooks,"

    Lenovo - "How about we just do....one, for now. Who needs to make a profit, anyway...."
    William.Farrel
    • Profit?

      I don't think these things are designed to make a real profit. I think these things are made to reduce loss on build materials that they would otherwise have to discard. It really is a no lose proposition for the OEM. It's just a big racket and that these tech writers have bought into it is mind boggling.
      retnep
    • blind

      Willy you seem totoally blind to anything that isn't microsoft.. you defended RT loads of times and that has even more limitations than ChromeOs, so really, have you actually ever tried a ChromeOS for a prolonged period or is it just more talking from your behind again?

      The people I know that actually HAVE chromebooks, actually like them. So perhaps you're just blinded by hate. (or alternatively by MS Love) to consider that they might have a point.
      frankieh