In Search of a Decent $500 Windows Laptop (Premium)

Every morning, I read the news using the terrible New York Times app for iPad. And every day, I wonder why I pay for this publication as I struggle with the app’s navigation roadblocks, slow article load times, and bugs. But there’s a reason I haven’t unsubscribed. Every once in a while—not every day, not quite—the NYT proves its worth. And these days, increasingly, that worth is derived almost solely from the publication’s 2016 acquisition of the Wirecutter, which I view as a more modern take on Consumer Reports.

Being more modern cuts both ways, of course: The Wirecutter, unlike Consumer Reports, earns affiliate commissions on links for products it recommends. But I feel that this site is trustworthy, based on years of evaluating its recommendations, first cautiously and more recently with a growing appreciation for its pragmatic and honest advice.

So it was with much interest that I swiped into an article titled A School Laptop Under $500 That Isn’t Junk. This should be interesting, I thought, given that there is no such thing as a sub-$500 Windows laptop that’s worth a damn.

But I shouldn’t have been surprised by the Wirecutter’s conclusions. They agree with me.

First, the baseline. As I write in the Windows 10 Field Guide—which is literally now completely up-to-date for Windows 10 version 1903—what you’re looking for in a productivity-focused Windows laptop is an Intel Core i5 (or equivalent) processor, 8 GB of RAM, and 128 GB of SSD (not eMMC) storage. That mid-level configuration is impossible under $500 for the most part, but it’s interesting how closely the Wirecutter’s recommendations match mine.

The Wirecutter recommends a 7th- or 8th-generation Intel Core i3 or i5 processor, noting that “a Core i5 is better but rare in this price range” and that “you can find Pentium and Celeron processors at this price, but they’re too slow for Windows.” Exactly right.

It also recommends “4 GB (preferably 8 GB) of memory,” noting that a 4 GB Windows laptop “allows you to have two or three applications open at a time, but after 10 or so browser tabs it’ll slow to a crawl.” And while it doesn’t specifically address slow eMMC storage, it does add that you want an SSD because “opening files is much snappier on an SSD than on a hard drive.” We’re on the same page.

Given this logic, I was curious what Windows laptops the site could possibly recommend that cost less than $500. The choices aren’t great because the performance just isn’t there in the machines that meet the price point.

“For $500 you can’t get a Windows laptop that can multitask that well or run memory-heavy programs, but you can get one that feels snappy enough for browsing the Web, running lightweight productivity software, and watching movies,” the Wirecutter explains, correctly. “A cheap Windows laptop can do what a Chromebook can, but it’s also likely saddled with bloatware, worse battery life, slow performance with lots of tabs open, and a cheaper-feeling case. The main reason to get one over a Chromebook is if you need to run Windows software.” Agreed.

The best option, according to the site, is the Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412FA-OS31T. It’s a convertible laptop with a 14-inch Full HD display that’s powered by an Intel Core i3-8145U processor, 4 GB of RAM, and 128 GB of SSD storage. Battery life is rated at 10 hours of video playback and 9 hours of web browsing, so I’d guess it’s about 5-6 hours in real-world uptime.

The price for this configuration varies from about $420 at Walmart to $480 at Office Depot. But Amazon only sells a lower-end configuration (with 64 GB of eMMC storage; unacceptable) for $530. For some reason.

That seems like a good buy. But the Wirecutter’s actual review of the device would make me nervous about sending little Johnny off to four years of high school with this PC. It features a “mushy” and “unresponsive” touchpad, which are typical in at this price point. A “half great, half mediocre” chassis with a “disappointing” design. It ships with crapware, including McAfee Antivirus and Windows 10 in S mode, which we’ll leave as an exercise for the buyer to remove on their own. And my battery life estimate was a bit off: It delivered less than 5 hours of real-world battery life.

But the biggest issue here, of course, is performance, and I’d caution anyone considering such a machine to think about Future You (or Future Little Johnny) and how needs change over time. As the Wirecutter notes, machines that sell for less than $500 “work,” but only for the basics. For Windows to really stretch its legs and let you run Office, email, a web browser with multiple tabs, and Spotify—we’re talking students here, after all—4 GB of RAM is not going to cut it. Not today and not in the future.

So you’ll need to spend more. And, look, the Wirecutter literally repeats back my own recommendations on specs in its review.

“You should look for a seventh- or eighth-generation Intel Core i5 processor, a 128 GB or larger solid-state drive, 8 GB of memory, and a 1080p screen. This is the best configuration for most people who want a usable laptop for everyday use that’ll last four or five years.”

Exactly.

And that configuration does not exist. Not for under $500.

The problem here, of course, is that there are many excellent Chromebook options at this price point. They offer better performance, better battery life, and, somewhat confusingly, often better build quality too. They’re also easier to update, according to the Wirecutter, and I guess I agree with that, too. They ship with no crapware at all.

Chromebooks aren’t perfect, of course. They run web-based software and Android apps, and the latter can be boon or bust on a Chromebook’s big display depending on the app. But many of the complaints against Chromebooks fall apart when you compare them to similarly-priced Windows laptops. No, a Chromebook isn’t a great option for those studying software development or graphic arts, or whatever specialty. But then neither is a $500 Windows laptop.

The Wirecutter also looks at the iPad, which can be configured with a Bluetooth keyboard for under $500. This harbinger of the Post PC era remains more promise than reality despite years of improvements, in my opinion. But it’s “perfect for a lot of liberal arts students,” the Wirecutter says, especially those who “prefer to take digital handwritten notes.” I guess. But this is another example of screwing over Future You, I bet: Many people, initially excited by the iPad option, will later find this choice not just limiting but a dead-end.

Looking back, we’ve seen so many efforts over the years to address this part of the market, but the results have been largely identical, from the terrible netbooks of a decade ago to the big, boxy, and plastic educational designs of more recent years. Microsoft’s Surface Go neatly explains what’s wrong with this market, and even the version with 8 GB of RAM and 128 GB of SSD storage—which costs an incredible $680 when outfitted with the necessary Type Cover—delivers unacceptable performance and terrible, terrible battery life, and comes with a tiny, less than full-sized keyboard. Yikes.

The PC market is infamous for its razor-thin margins, and even high-end PCs ship with crapware that I believe makes the difference between profitable and non-profitable. But the issue, really, is technology: Windows is big and bloated because it’s designed to run the decades-worth of legacy desktop applications that define this platform. With products like Windows RT and Windows 10 in S mode, Microsoft has proven that it can componentize the system enough to work acceptably in low-end configurations. But that all falls apart when users undertake two common activities: Running desktop applications and opening multiple tabs in a web browser.

There is almost certainly no cure for desktop applications: No matter the system, these applications typically require more resources than their mobile and web application equivalents, and they’re more complex, less secure, less reliable, and less battery friendly. To date, Microsoft has attempted to guide users towards more efficient mobile apps, but because that platform has failed, so, too, have Windows RT and S mode. Next, it will almost certainly try the web application route, and I expect the coming “Lite OS,” or whatever, it’s called, to basically be a Microsoft-branded Chrome OS.

Whether that will succeed, and whether PC makers will deliver Lite OS laptops that match the performance, pricing, and capabilities of Chromebooks, are open questions. But if Microsoft has any hope of succeeding in this part of the market, it’s clear that Windows will never be the answer. And that means figuring out a way to get its user base to move past Windows desktop applications but not switch to a non-Microsoft platform. It’s a daunting task.

If you can afford to spend more than $500—say $750 or so—you’re in good shape. At that price point, you can easily meet the Core i5/8 GB/128 GB requirements for decent Windows performance and perhaps take advantage of other niceties like a Windows Hello-compatible fingerprint reader and/or webcam, a slimmer form factor, better battery life, a higher-resolution display, and more. If not, it might be time to start looking into Google Docs and a Chromebook. Or perhaps just hoping that Microsoft will magically get it right the next time around.

You never know.