Vizio starts selling PC all-in-one desktops and notebooks

As first promised back in January at CES 2012, Vizio, the well known maker of cheap flat screen televisions, is now offering a line-up of desktop and notebook PCs for sale. The company previously launched a lineup of Android-based tablets.

The desktops are created as an all-in-one design, with 24 inch and 27 inch screens. Both models can be customized inside in terms of its hardware with up to an Intel Core i7 processor available. The Vizio all-in-one PCs can accommodate up to 8 GB of RAM, up to a 1 TB hard drive, with an option for an additional 32 GB solid state drive. You can also put in an NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M graphics card.

The Vizio PC also has an integrated 1.3 megapixel camera and its own wireless keyboard, touchpad and remote. The base of the PC contains a number of ports, including four USB 3.0 ports, two HDMI ports, an Ethernet port and an SD card reader. Pricing for the Vizion all-in-one PCs begins at $1,099.

Vizio also has a 15.6 inch notebook on sale which weighs in at over five pounds. Again, you can put in up to an Intel Core i7 processor inside, along with up to 8 GB of RAM, up to a 1 TB hard drive, and an option for an additional 32 GB solid state drive. It also comes with a 1.3 megapixel camera and a battery life of up to 6.5 hours. Pricing for the notebook starts at $899.

Finally Vizio is launching two Ultrabook-based notebooks. They come in a 14 inch version that weights 3.36 pounds and a 15.6 inch model that weights 3.96 pounds. Again, you can put in up to an Intel Core i7 processor inside but the Ultrabook models are limited to just 4 GB of RAM. All of them have a 128 GB solid state drive with battery life of up to seven hours. Pricing for the Ultrabook models starts at $899.

Source: Vizio | Image via Vizio

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft launches new Bubbles IE 10 demo site

Next Story

Vizio PCs will get an "Easter Egg" when updated to Windows 8

23 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

matejs said,
I can feel an Apple lawsuit coming over the keyboard

No joke, just looking at the picture first thing that jumped to mind was some new Mac. Pretty setup though if you're into that sort of thing. (Not me, I prefer a ginormous chassis as big as a refrigerator and about as heavy.)

no-sweat said,
Not a big fan of the compact keyboard for the AIO... gimme a normal keyboard pls, no need for that.
Nothing stops you from using another keyboard

Rudy said,
Too bad the 27" has such a ****ty resolution....otherwise it's nice looking

Since when is 1920x1080 a ****ty resolution? Not every screen has to have crazy resolution.

Rudy said,
Too bad the 27" has such a ****ty resolution....otherwise it's nice looking

1900?x1080 is low for a 27". Pretty lame.

BajiRav said,

Since when is 1920x1080 a ****ty resolution? Not every screen has to have crazy resolution.
1080p is fine for 22" but is EXTREMELY low for a 27"

jagowar said,

1080p is fine for even my 110 inch projector....

On a 110 inch projector all you really care about is 1 giant image to give you that movie feeling. A resolution of 1920 by 1200 on a 27 inch screen essentially giving you no real estate (How many apps you can have on the screen at one time) benefit over a 24 inch monitor. So unless a 27 inch monitor has a resolution of 2560 x 1440 (and you will pay a lot for it) I consider it a waste of money!

Rudy said,
1080p is fine for 22" but is EXTREMELY low for a 27"

A quick check of NewEgg listing all the available 27" LCD monitor models shows 39 models with 1920x1080 compared to 12 with 2560x1440 (no other resolutions show up). So while it's not the highest by any means it's not "EXTREMELY low" as you claim. Furthermore the cheapest of the 2560x1440 costs over $680 which is over $400 more than many of the 1920x1080 models. I'd rather run dual 1920x1080's than pay that kind of premium. You'd get more pixels for less money.

Asmodai said,

A quick check of NewEgg listing all the available 27" LCD monitor models shows 39 models with 1920x1080 compared to 12 with 2560x1440 (no other resolutions show up). So while it's not the highest by any means it's not "EXTREMELY low" as you claim. Furthermore the cheapest of the 2560x1440 costs over $680 which is over $400 more than many of the 1920x1080 models. I'd rather run dual 1920x1080's than pay that kind of premium. You'd get more pixels for less money.

Yep i've done the same search. I wouldn't buy one. I'd spend the extra money. Do you know that the expensive 27's resolution is just shy of that of the resolution of a 30 inch monitor!?

Asmodai said,

A quick check of NewEgg listing all the available 27" LCD monitor models shows 39 models with 1920x1080 compared to 12 with 2560x1440 (no other resolutions show up). So while it's not the highest by any means it's not "EXTREMELY low" as you claim. Furthermore the cheapest of the 2560x1440 costs over $680 which is over $400 more than many of the 1920x1080 models. I'd rather run dual 1920x1080's than pay that kind of premium. You'd get more pixels for less money.

I wonder what resolution the 27" came in at first. 24" monitors were 1900 x 1600 and 20" monitors were 2560 x 1600. I thought the 27" monitors at first were 2560x1440. I rather have more PPI (pixels per inch) then a large screen size with a smaller PPI. The cost between those 27" monitors is so stupid. Does it really cost that much more for PPI. I know that manufacturers are having a hard time with too small PPI but they have been making 27" at 2560x1440 for a good while now. It is all marketing BS. They know people think that a larger screen is better and that they do not understand resolution.

jagowar said,
1080p is fine for even my 110 inch projector....

No, it's really not. That gives you a pixel density of 22PPI, which is 80% lower than most PC displays. Even for home cinema use that's still very poor. You'd need to go up to 8K (8192x4320) to be comparable in quality to a PC monitor.

For a 27" PC monitor the idea resolution is between 2112x1188 to 2368x1332 - the former is the equivalent pixel density of a 22" monitor at 1680x1050; the latter the equivalent to a 30" monitor at 2560x1600. That's because Windows is not resolution independent (not even Windows 8, it only has tiered stages for Metro) - anything below that resolution range appears too large; anything above too small. Unfortunately most 27" monitors are either 1080p or 2560x1440, which means neither is ideal. A 30" 2560x1600 monitor has a PPI of 100, which is the highest that I find acceptable - YMMV.