Talk:Toughbook

Should be a rugged laptop article
Maybe this should be merged with the Rugged Computer article so that other manufacturers would be written about on the same page. Would help to take care of neutrality. Robinandraenelle (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Links - why not to the Panasonic webiste?
I noticed that most of the links are to the usatcorp.com website. Is there some particular reason why they are not linked directly to the Panasonic website?  iamthebob ( talk 03:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The pages on the Pana server are dynamic so the links would need to be updated with frequency. I recd :Ah, okay, I see now. Thanks for telling me.  iamthebob ( talk 09:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Source?

 * "Notebooks made by major manufacturers have a return rate averaging 25%, while..." Twenty-five percent?  Yeah, I'd say a citation is needed!
 * I agree, we need a source for that statement. However, I find that a mean time between failures (MTBF) for portable/laptop/notebook computers of 1-2 years is about right. --Johnlogic (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Despammed article
Removed vast amounts of spam from reseller "http://www.buytough.com". All links relating to that site have been removed, except for their google group. Supposed info pages bring you to purchase. Please watch for attempts to re-insert them.

Despammed article
Removed vast amounts of spam from reseller "http://www.usatcorp.com". All links relating to that site have been removed. Please watch for attempts to re-insert them. Thanks. --John Nagle 20:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But the article still feels like an advertisement. --Proficient 12:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a subsidiary of Panasonic now?
I've been reading articles about Tablet PCs and such lately, and they all appear to be full of praise for the Toughbook line. The Tablet PC article itself mentions them glowingly three times! What's the deal with that? --68.147.167.6 01:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If the Toughbook is the only type in it's class that can do is that still favoritism? Are there citeable sources that contradict the praise which has been offered in the tablet PC article and even the Toughbook pages? --Tangerineduel 01:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Toughbooks get a lot of praise from users for their quality and rugedness. But one thing they are not is "cheap". Even used, it is not unusual to see them selling for $1,500+. And the base model "semi-rugged" start new in the $2,000 range. If you want the fully-rugged models, they start in the $3,200 range. Where durability is required, these are a good choice. But they are far outside the cost of most users for normal laptop use. Mushrom 20:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as advertising, I needed some info before buying one and I found this website really useful. Nonetheless ... are there any competitors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.174.75.2 (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Patent Spam

 * Patent spam, and poorly executed at that. Should be deleted immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhvrm (talk • contribs) 21:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As has been mentioned there are not many examples of laptops like this. If you'd like to alter the language, fine, but the idea that this should be deleted is laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.28.149.241 (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. Certainly, much of this article is -- and will be -- similar in tone to the Panasonic marketing literature that I've been reading. --Johnlogic (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Software issues?

 * Does anyone else recognize the problem with shipping MIL spec hardware with software that is fundamentally-unsound (Microsoft Windows)? Other PC makers are starting to wise up; Apple offers Mac OS X UNIX and Dell offers Ubuntu Linux. (Boutique PC maker Tadpole Computer, also in Cupertino, California, offers MIL spec hardware running Solaris.) I think it's worthy of mention, but would like to keep the text appropriate. Thanks --Johnlogic (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this is the place for an Operating System Holy War, Maybe it would be better suited in an article about technology in the military? 199.212.8.26 (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure Windows is certified for military use anyway in certain configurations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnd999 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wireless capable models

 * Why is there a special section for wireless capable models? Aren't all the models wireless capable? This article needs some class, it reads like an ad O_o 199.212.8.26 (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
I suggest removing all sections of this article except for the opening section, references and external links. Rather than extensive revisions to attempt to change this tiger's stripes, let's just get rid of the tiger. Dhvrm (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think some of the info contained in "the tiger's stripes" are important. I have already begun to remove advertising and will continue to do so for a couple days. Airplaneman  talk 22:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much done now :). Airplaneman  talk 23:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

temperatures
Why is it -29C minimum operating temperature? Did someone do a literal convert from farenheit? If someone looks at the metric stats, would it say -29 or -30? 70.55.86.142 (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

news
Hey, this notebook has BEEN IN THE NEWS. Why isn't that in this article? It was shot and stopped a bullet in Iraq. 70.55.86.142 (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Source? Airplaneman talk 22:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a terrible source. A website entirely devoted to praising Panasonic Toughbooks is does not exactly follow WP:RS.  I'm going to go ahead and stick a citation needed up.  Aeonoris (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-rugged models need a update
Since the CF-54 is out, shouldn't it be updated as the 53 isn't the most recent one now?--84.105.83.223 (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Ah, someone updated the article with all current TB models. --84.105.83.223 (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

CF-19 screen size weirdness?
Does anyone know the offical size of the 19's screen? Some sources say 10.1, but others say 10.4..

My 19 Mk5 has a very slightly smaller screen (black borders on the edges of the screen) so I guess 10.4 is for the pre-Mk4 ones. --84.105.83.223 (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Definite answer below:

Pre Mk3 19s: 10.4 screen. Anything after the Mk3: 10.1, it has the borders around the edges of the screen, probably because of the LED backlight they started to use in the Mk3. --84.105.83.223 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Pic of 19 Mk6 yes/no?
As the only pic of a CF-19 is the Mk1 in this article, is there a need for a pic of the newest spec 19? --84.105.83.223 (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggested updates to this page
COI/Paid Editor: I am an employee of the Amber Group and a paid contractor for Panasonic Toughbook

I have a number of suggested updates for this page for editors to consider:

Introduction

The Toughpad brand name was retired in 2018 with all Panasonic rugged notebooks, tablets and handheld devices reverting to the Toughbook brand name.

Retired Models

The following models have been retired: Toughbook CF-30, Toughbook CF-29, Toughbook CF-28, Toughbook CF-27, Toughbook CF-25, Toughbook CF-19, Toughbook CF-C2, Toughbook CF-41, Toughbook CF-45, Toughbook CF-53, Toughbook CF-52, Toughbook CF-SX2, Toughbook CF-AX3, Toughbook CF-LX3, Toughbook CF-MX4, Toughbook CF-H2, Toughbook CF-U1

Current range of models:

Toughbook 2-in-1 models: Toughbook 20 Detachable, Toughbook 33 Detachable, Toughbook XZ6

Toughbook notebook models: Toughbook CF-31, Toughbook 54, Toughbook 55

Toughbook tablet models: Toughbook CF-D1, Toughbook L1, Toughbook M1, Toughbook G1,

Toughbook handheld models: Toughbook T1, Toughbook N1

Additional details on model specs can be provided if required. Many thanks Amber828525 (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)