265 replies to this topic

[czar]

Also, if I can get a laptop with XP, should I?

I still use XP for my three stations (home desktop, work desktop, and virtualization on my MacBook), but that's merely a comfort factor.

Vista isn't a great operating system, but most of the public backlash was a result of it being installed in computers that did not have sufficient specifications to run the software. If you have less than 2 MB of RAM and lack a dedicated gfx card, you're going to have trouble with the features in Vista no matter who you are or what you run-- it's a resource hog.

However, the first Inspiron (3 GB RAM) you spec'ed above should be able to handle Vista reasonably (even with the onboard 3100 gfx), the 2nd one would be closer to borderline, but should still be OK. If you are still comfortable with XP, however, it might be prudent just to get that and wait until 7 comes out later this year. It's essentially whether or not XP familiarity is important to you.

[Blacken]

Vista's fine. It's different, but it's not problematic after the first little while. I generally turn off Aero and retheme it to Windows Classic and I find that the UI improvements are pretty handy (as opposed to the theming, which sucks sloppy donkey dick).

[Resonance Wright]

You may need to upgrade to Vista Business if your work from home includes remotely connecting to a work system.

I'm on a box with Vista 64 home premium and 8 GB of memory. A month or so ago I was still on XP Pro with 4 GB, 2-2.5 of which was usable because it was a 32 bit OS. Vista is a worse performer in the round in most areas so far as I've been able to determine, but the superfetch is an AWESOME thing, especially with beaucoup memory.

As far as visual performance, benchmarking, etc. -- I'd say my system is 5 to 10% slower with the new OS. In overall performance, it's a little harder to say. I'm disappointed but there's definitely things to like in Vista so I haven't changed back yet and if anything, I'll probably end up just upgrading at some point to a 64 bit version of Windows 7.

[3rd Degree]

Is this a good deal?

I'm just looking for a replacement for my old PCG-K23 that died a week back. I'll only be using the computer for basic use at home.

[czar]

Is this a good deal?

I'm just looking for a replacement for my old PCG-K23 that died a week back. I'll only be using the computer for basic use at home.

Also saw it pop up on Slick Deals this morning.

For basic use, it's not terrible-- no dedicated GPU, a T2390, and 2 GB DDR2 4200-- it won't break any speed records, especially with Vista Home; not sure how VAIO's battery lives are on the bigger (15"+) models-- I'd Google that if it's important to you. But for surfing the net, shooting e-mails, running basic applications (Office, basic A/V stuff, etc.) it'll suffice.

For $400 refurb, a VAIO isn't a bad deal since Sony's laptops are higher-end as far as the big brands go. Just make sure to check on the warranty if you are worried about that. I'm not sure what Office Max covers or what Sony (if anything) also covers. Refurbs run the gamut as far as being able to get things swapped out goes.

[DanoooME]

If I wanted to get a laptop and plug in to my flat panel TV, do I need an HDMI connection? Or could I just go from a USB port to the TV?

[Jnai]

If I wanted to get a laptop and plug in to my flat panel TV, do I need an HDMI connection? Or could I just go from a USB port to the TV?

It depends, but on many nice TVs, there is a direct VGA in. Many Laptops also have S-Video out. Both of those cables will likely be cheaper.

[DanoooME]

It depends, but on many nice TVs, there is a direct VGA in. Many Laptops also have S-Video out. Both of those cables will likely be cheaper.

I have 2 HDMI in, an S Video in, and 2 sets of plugs that accommodate the HD cable box with the 5 connectors. So it looks like the S Video is the best bet. I have a Sharp Aquos 52" TV.

[mr_smith02]

Does anyone have any recommendations for mini-laptops? Any brand that should be avoided? Is MSI a reliable brand?

Edited by mr_smith02, 09 April 2009 - 08:05 PM.

[Dernells Casket n Flagon]

<br />I have 2 HDMI in, an S Video in, and 2 sets of plugs that accommodate the HD cable box with the 5 connectors. So it looks like the S Video is the best bet. I have a Sharp Aquos 52&quot; TV.

Unless you\'re only using it to watch DVD Quality or lower videos off of your laptop, you don\'t want to use S-Video. If you\'re trying to use your PC, surf the web, read text or anything it will be absolutely crap because of the max resolution on S video is 480I, whereas your TV is probably 720P or more likely for a 52\" 1080P. The \'two sets of plugs with the 5 connectors\' is (most likely from your explanation) component video. If you give us the exact model of your TV, we could probably tell you your best option. If a computer has a DVI output, you can go from DVI to HDMI very easily and have a high quality image. Otherwise you\'ll probably want to go from VGA to Component with something like this (http://www.amazon.co...5/dp/B000FM3EQ0).

[Resonance Wright]

For someone who 'just needs a laptop' and is kinda short on cash, this isn't a bad deal at all.

Gateway T-6345U NoteBook Intel Pentium dual-core T3400(2.16GHz) 14.1" Wide XGA 2GB Memory DDR2 667 250GB HDD 5400rpm DVD Super Multi Intel GMA X3100 - Retail -- $399.99 and free shipping at NewEgg

It's got weak integrated video and a Pentium Dual Core processor, and the memory isn't very fast.

On the other hand, it's got 2 gigs of that memory, which is enough for a cheap laptop. And it's a penny under $400, shipped. Most of the time when you see a laptop at that price it's got, like, a Celeron chip and a gig or under of RAM. You can get a lot better of a laptop for a few hundred dollars more but at the price, this isn't a bad deal at all.

[BC1994]

Figured I wouldn't start a whole new thread for this question, so here goes...

My wife and I have a Dell Inspiron 6000 which we have had for about 2 1/2 years. The other day, I noticed that the battery wasn't charging, and when restarted there is an error message that the "AC adapter is not recognized". I looked online and this seems to be a common problem for Dells.

It is weird- the cord does power the computer, but it doesn't charge the battery. Anyone had this problem? Can it be fixed with a new AC adapter, or is it a problem with the computer itself? I doubt it would be worth trying to fix it beyond getting a new adapter, since it is old. The stuff I saw online varied as to recommendations for how to proceed when having this problem.

Thanks!

[saintnick912]

I've heard of a couple of Dells that have had a pin bend/break internally so that they won't take a charge anymore. A similar thing also happened to my Dad's iPod in a power surge, where it fried the chip that directed the current to the battery. I'd strongly suspect it's something inside the machine and not in the adapter if you can run on AC power off of it.

[Dernells Casket n Flagon]

If the computer is working when plugged in, it\'s not the AC adapter. It\'s probably a problem with the motherboard. Unfortunately with these two to four year old Dells, the cost to fix this is generally not worth vs getting a new machine, unless you have one of the really high end Dells with the larger monitors.

[BC1994]

That's basically what I figured... Thanks, guys.

Time to read the stuff upthread!

[Infield Infidel]

I have a Dell Inspiron 6000 as well, got it Jan 2006. I damaged my first adapter last year, right where the cord meets the prong. It would only power or charge if positioned a certain way. So after I replaced it (new one costs $15), I got the same warning you did. It went away after awhile, and charged my battery fine. Only thing, since the previous cord wasn't always powering, my battery was running a lot, and thus close to dead.

[BC1994]

Would something like this...

http://www.tigerdire...e...&CatId=2510

be a decent deal for someone who, admittedly, doesn't ask much of their home laptop? Any red flags or small upgrades that should be made?

[Bongorific]

Would something like this...

http://www.tigerdire...e...&CatId=2510

be a decent deal for someone who, admittedly, doesn't ask much of their home laptop? Any red flags or small upgrades that should be made?

It's not a bad system at all. What are you looking to do? Dell has a couple of decent deals right now with coupon codes. The first is 35% of their Vostro lineup for laptops with a base price of $949. You can get a setup with a Core 2 duo processor, dedicated graphics, and a better screen than the IBM for about $625. They also have 20% the Inspiron line for laptops over $799.

35% code: LD7SCQR0NW08LR
20% code: B$89KMG909?2WN

[Resonance Wright]

Eh, that's not a bad computer for the price.

http://stores.channe...t...th Free Bag

This one's better. At $512 it's about the same price, but it's a Thinkpad, which are better engineered in my opinion.

The basic difference is that the Thinkpad has a MUCH better processor. It has a gig less RAM but it's better RAM. The one you linked has a little bit larger of a hard drive, much worse wireless, a single layer DVD burner, and the same video capabilities. Same warranty.



I kind of have a knee-jerk preference for Thinkpads and am not a fan of the Pentium Dual Core -- at least nothing under the 5000 level series. The truth is that either computer will probably meet your needs and Lenovo is a brand I've had good luck with, I'm just on a crusade to keep people from buying computers with shitty components when they can buy better ones. Call me Ahab.


I have bought thousands of dollars of stuff from Tiger Direct and they often have great prices on their loss leaders, but the 'used car salesman' thing they have going on kind of irritates me. They happily sell people computers with crappy parts because they can make a profit at that price point, which is fine, but I wish they were a little more honest about levels of performance. The other day they had some 'blowout' deal on computers with Pentium D processors. Big, bold letters about how it was the FASTEST clocked PROCESSOR EVER and all this crap because the clock speed was 3.73GHz. Literally. Big letters FASTEST, tiny letters 'clocked', big letters PROCESSOR. The only problem is that the Pentium D sucked ass when it came out and that was in 2005.

[BC1994]

Thanks guys...

Basically, I won't be demanding much of the laptop, but I would like it to last (physically as well as performance-wise) for at least 2 years or so. As I said, we mainly use it for the internet as well as some fairly low-demand programs.

Say I had a budget of $750... What would you recommend?

Caveat: I would prefer new- not refurbished. I know it would probably be fine, but call it a bias. Building it myself is also not an option...

[Resonance Wright]

Thanks guys...

Basically, I won't be demanding much of the laptop, but I would like it to last (physically as well as performance-wise) for at least 2 years or so. As I said, we mainly use it for the internet as well as some fairly low-demand programs.

Say I had a budget of $750... What would you recommend?

Caveat: I would prefer new- not refurbished. I know it would probably be fine, but call it a bias. Building it myself is also not an option...

Well, that's good, because building your own laptop is mostly not an option. You can find a few laptop barebones -- ASUS makes a couple -- that you can customize with components, but really that's sort of a niche market.

If your budget was $750, you can go to Lenovo and order a new Thinkpad T400 with the basic loadout, upgrade it to Vista Home Premium and 2 GB of RAM and it's around $880. With the e-coupon for 15% off that puts it right in your ballpark. And that's really not their best sale at all -- if you have a while to wait you'll probably be able to find something a little bit better than that.

If you shop sales you can actually get quite a bit of laptop for $750. Can take a little patience but you can get one with a late model Core 2 Duo and decent options. You might even find one with discrete graphics, but as a casual user that's less of a priority for you.

[Sinistas]

I snagged a Dell Inspiron 1525 w/ 2GHz Core 2 Duo and 3GB of RAM for $430 shipped out of their outlet the other week. Running Windows 7 RC on it with no complaints so far.

[Resonance Wright]

http://www.tigerdire...sku=S445-170012

Gateway P-7805u FX Refurbished Notebook PC
From the ground up, this 17" Gateway P-7805u FX Refurbished Notebook PC is designed with performance in mind. The Gateway P-7805u FX Refurbished Notebook PC is packed with a powerful Intel Core 2 Duo P8400 2.26GHz Processor featuring Centrino 2 Technology, the advanced 64-bit SP1 version of Genuine Windows® Vista Home Premium, and 4GB of onboard DDR3 RAM. Power through games, video editing and more with the NVIDIA® GeForce® 9800M GTS graphics processor, featuring 1GB of GDDR3 Discrete Video Memory. Get stunning image quality, ultra-fast frame rates, plus all the power to enjoy the beauty of high-definition content. Throw it in your backpack and head to a LAN party, or set up an impromptu coffee table theatre with the Gateway P-7805u FX Refurbished Notebook PC massive, vibrant WXGA+ 17" 1440 x 900 widescreen. Tote a massive media and data library wherever you go with this notebook's spacious 320GB 7200rpm SATA hard drive. Not only can you take all your media with you. But you can also keep it safe or even expand with this notebooks secondary hard drive slot. The features you'd expect in a custom-built machine come standard—all built into a sleek notebook frame that oozes "vroom."

For $750 that is a pretty damned good deal, even if it's refurbished.

Edited by Resonance Wright, 27 May 2009 - 12:35 PM.

[cutman1000]

My friend's laptop got stolen, and he's looking to buy a new one. I'm an Apple guy, so I'm not up to date on all the current PC specs. What Intel processor should he be looking for?

So far this one is that the top of the list:

http://www.sony.co.n...c/vgnfw33gw.jsp

Disregard price at this point because a) it's in New Zealand dollars and b) it's pretty easy to haggle here and get the price lowered significantly.

I just want to make sure that he gets a laptop that won't be obsolete tomorrow.

Thanks.

[Monbo Jumbo]

http://www.tigerdire...sku=S445-170012



For $750 that is a pretty damned good deal, even if it's refurbished.

I'm sorry I missed this one. I'm in the market for a laptop. It must be a 17" screen. I found this refurbished Sony on overstock.com. Is it a big deal that it's 32 bit Vista and not 64 bit?

And if anyone knows of any other deals around, it would be appreciated.

edit This refurb HP from Tiger might be better than the Sony.

Edited by Monbo Jumbo, 08 June 2009 - 08:52 AM.

[Resonance Wright]

MJ -- I think it's the HP.

Both systems have a lot to like. Both have firewire, both have N wireless, both have a Blu-Ray drive and non-sucky onboard video, both have average-or-better CPUs for laptops, both have a good amount of RAM. With both you're getting quite a bit for the price.

The HP has an edge in the following: HD space, RAM, and GPU. It has 500GB of hard drive space (and a free bay you could add a second hard drive too) where the Sony has 320GB of space. It has 4 GB of RAM to the Sony's 3. Ordinarily I wouldn't care as much about that because both are enough for almost anything, and RAM is a cheap upgrade down the road if you end up deciding you need more. One weird thing is that the type of RAM isn't mentioned, either on Tiger Direct or HP's site -- it says DDR2, and that's it. That matters because there's different grades of DDR2 and the Sony has a cheap grade -- if the HP has 800MHz DDR2 RAM (I suspect it does) then its ram is both better overall compared to the 667MHz DDR2 RAM in the Sony, and a better match to the speed of the processor. If it's just 667MHz DDR2-5300 RAM like what's in the Sony, then you're still getting another GB of it, which isn't a gamechanger but it is a nice plus. If it's also faster (DDR2-6400) like I suspect it is, then it's -- well, still not a gamechanger, but a really nice upgrade over the Sony. And the HP has a notably better video card -- the 9600M GT, where the Sony has an older 8400M GT. Either one of these is a whole lot better than stock onboard Intel video, and is better than the bottom-tier of discrete laptop video. But the 9600M GT is about as much better than the 8400M GT as the 8400M GT is better than stock.

The HPalso has a card reader and bluetooth -- two things that the Sony may also have, I don't know, the description of the Sony is sparse. . The only thing is, if I remember correctly, you weren't really looking for bells and whistles,and card readers and bluetooth probably fall into that category.


The specs on the Sony aren't bad, though, and if someone really just preferred Sony's design features etc (I haven't used one in forever so I can't say) it would be an acceptable buy. One big problem is that Overstock just says it's a 2.1GHz Core 2 Duo. My instinct says that it's probably a T8100, and if that's true, it's a better CPU than what's in the HP -- a little faster, faster bus, slightly better design, and 50% more cache on the chip. That's the one area I can see that the Sony is better in, but having a better CPU is big.

I think overall if you sat the two down side by side and benchmarked them both you would find the HP is just consistently faster on most things though. The extra cache and a slight increase in the CPU clock speed would give the Sony the lead in a few application tests but with that bigass screen, the experience is going to be a lot better with the HP's video card and build-wise, the HP has superior components.


HP isn't the most reliable of the big names and their customer service sucks. I think Sony is known for more elegant design. But Sony, in recent memory, has shipped laptops that caught on fire; worse, it knew it was an issue and hushed it up for a long time. So between the two systems you list, that's also a pretty clear choice.

[JohnnyK]

I found this refurbished Sony on overstock.com. Is it a big deal that it's 32 bit Vista and not 64 bit?

RW already gave you the rundown, but just to add 2 things:
* With "only" 3GB of RAM you are better off with a 32bit OS anyway since hardly any software is optimized for 64bit
* Not entirely sure if this works with OEM licenses, but standard Vista licenses are valid for both the 32bit and 64bit version; so if you ever feel the need to install 64bit Vista, you can officially order a 64bit disc for 10 bucks from MS (or use any 64bit install CD as long as it is the same version - starter, business, ultimate etc.) and use the key that came with your 32bit install.

[Resonance Wright]

As far as the 32 bit vs 64 bit OS -- If someone has 3 GB or less RAM in a laptop, even though I think 64 bit OSes are demonstrably superior, I have zero problem with them using a 32 bit OS. The reason is pretty simple -- 64 bit OSes have issues where a particular driver or program that you might like just won't run, or will screw up. This will get better with time and down the road all OSes will be at least 64 bit so everything will be 64 bit compatible. It has gotten better in just the last year. But it's still an issue. A lot of stuff is still based on code for 32 bit systems, especially a lot of the neat third-party apps a lot of us used to like to play with.


The primary reason to have a 64 bit OS, unless you do really high performance stuff or you're crunching numbers in extremely large and constant calculations, is the expanded addressing, which allows the computer to make use of extra RAM. A 32 bit OS usually only can make use of around 3 to 3.5 gigs of RAM or so, and if you have RAM dedicated on your video or sound card that counts toward the total too. When I used a 32 bit OS in this machine, even though it then had 4 GB of RAM, because I had two 512MB video boards running in SLI, the system could only pick up about 2.5 GB of RAM.

64 bit systems benefit from 64 bit operating software in other departments as well -- they crunch numbers better, they're harder to hack, and they do certain things -- like encrypting or decrypting data or other similarly mathematically intense operations -- a WHOLE lot faster. But for the average user, the significant benefit lies in getting to use a bunch more RAM. In this case -- where the laptop only comes with 3 GB, the balance is between driver and software hassles on the one side, vs. the ease with which you can upgrade your RAM, minor but real benefits in CPU function, and extremely large benefits in a few areas on the other. That might not sound like much of a choice at all, but trust me, the incompatibility issues can be pretty damned frustrating, and for me it's not worth it to upgrade, pro forma, to a 64 bit system w/o having at least 4 GB of RAM. A year from now, two years from now, I'd say 'get the 64 bit OS and some RAM to go with it', but right now, I think the 32 bit OS is fine (unless you do the things that 64 bit OSes excel at.)

If you ever want to upgrade your RAM over 3 or so GB -- and you may, at some point -- then you'd need a 64 bit OS. But ---


Eh, I feel kind of stupid saying this because it's the sort of statement that historically gets chewed up all the time. But I'm not sure you're going to need more than 3 GB of RAM anytime soon. It's a lot of RAM. It's certainly true that as time has passed, systems have made use of more and more RAM. I remember when you could buy sticks of RAM under 1 MB, and I'm not that old at all. Four or so years ago 1GB of RAM seemed like a lot, now it's barely enough to run a light computer. So it's tough to make that kind of statement.

But there's a couple of factors involved that make it easier. Between Vista being a resource hog, RAM being cheap, immense competition in the computer manufacturer industry, and the general vague idea the average person has that 'more RAM is better', I think at this point in time the industry has overcorrected on RAM. Undoubtedly in the long term RAM will continue to rise. But with Windows 7 around the corner (all indicators are that Windows 7 is much easier on system resources than Vista was) I think we may be at a point in the market where the amount of RAM being sold with computers is no longer really being dictated by actual system and software requirements and is now being dictated more by marketing.

Who knows? I might be as wrong as wrong can be on that one. This is just one of those things that irk me a little bit about computer sales, though.

<rant>Computer manufacturers don't do a good job of educating the user; they're content to just market to the user along the lines that make economic sense to the manufacturer.

Back when RAM was expensive stuff, computers were often sold with too little of it. The average consumer had no idea what RAM was, they saw that machines with a lot of RAM cost a ton, and the salespeople just talked about the processors and the hard drive, so people got stuck buying crappy machines because the sales force didn't do a good job educating people as to what mattered. And enough people got burned, and/or saw huge huge improvements in their computer when they or someone else got brave and popped the side off the box and stuck some more RAM in (probably the easiest upgrade there is in terms of labor, it takes maybe a minute to do and anyone can figure out how to do it in a few seconds) that all of a sudden the word of mouth buzz about computers was about RAM -- you want to get a lot of RAM, more RAM is always good, etc. And then RAM got cheaper. And suddenly things started going the other way, and now people are selling computers with far more RAM than the users will ever likely need. Some unscrupulous sellers are selling 32 bit OSes in systems with 4, even 8 GB of RAM in them! Other sellers are dumping cheap RAM off on customers who only know that more RAM is better, so if they see the same system with 4 GB of 667 MHz DDR2 RAM in one place and 2 GB of 1.3 GHz DDR3 RAM in the other place, they'll opt for the 4 GB system even though the 2 GB machine would thrash the 4 GB one most of the time.

The fact is that right now the average user looks at a few things. The speed of the processor. Whether it's a quad core or a dual core (another area where people assume that more cores is better and it's not always so). How much RAM it has. And how big the hard drive is.

These are all important, but the speed of the RAM, the cache size of the hard drive and the CPU, the size of the PSU and the amount it can sustainably push out over its 12 volt rails, and the video card are all hugely important too. In a lot of cases they're even more important. And when you buy the average computer from the average seller, a lot of that information is something you have to dig to find.

• Having a 1.5TB hard drive is nice, but the average person will see more benefits from a 640 GB hard drive with a 32 MB cache (or a 150GB Velociraptor) than they would from a 1.5 TB drive with a 16 MB cache.
• Having a 2.66 GHz processor is nicer than having a 2.4 GHz processor. Usually. But depending on what they do, the average person may see better perfomance out of a 2.4 GHz processor if the former has a 3MB cache and the latter has a 6 MB cache.
• Having a quad core is nice, but the average person will see more performance out of their computer if they buy a fast Core 2 Duo like an e8400, e8500, or e8600, and they are usually significantly cheaper than even a cheap, cut-down Core 2 Quad. Unless you're doing computationally heavy stuff or using highly multithreaded apps (highly multithreaded = capable of getting full use out of more than two cores at the same time) your e8500 will, day to day, beat the pants off a Core 2 Quad that cost $200 more. And I say this as a guy who has a Core 2 Quad machine, and I love it -- but if I hadn't gotten a massive discount on that C2Q there's no way I would have shelled out for it.
• Having a 3.16 Core 2 Duo with a 1333MHz FSB is nice and fast, but if you stick 533MHz RAM in with it, it you might as well go with a slower processor because you're not getting your money's worth out of it. Rule of thumb -- whatever your DDR2 memory frequency is, half that number should exceed 1/4 of the FSB frequency listed for your C2D CPU. Otherwise you'll see a memory bottleneck. And there's little point going above that unless you go 1:1 ratio.
• And having a system with a Core i7 Extreme Edition and a $400 X58 motherboard, 12 GB of DDR3-1600 RAM, two Intel X25 SSDs in RAID-0 and 4 2TB hard drives in RAID 5 for storage, watercooled with a Peltier and powered by a 1400 watt power supply is really cool and it'll encode video like nobody's business... but it is going to completely suck ass at gaming if it has a Radeon 4830 GPU in it. Likewise, you can have a system with two GTX295s SLIed (those two boards will run you anywhere from $1100 to $1500) but if you don't have a CPU fast enough to keep up, you might as well have spent $400 and got a couple of GTX260s. Basically computers are ruled by their bottlenecks.

And sadly most manufacturers do a shitty job of educating their customers on these things, because otherwise they couldn't have great profit margins selling new machines full of crappy old gear. Plus, and I'm sure they've thought of this too, but when you build a new machine right and put the right, sweet-spot-of-the-market gear in it, you can usually use your computer a few more years than you otherwise could. Am I paranoid? Maybe, but I don't know of a manufacturer of ANYTHING that would rather sell people a machine every five years if they could sell them one every three.
</rant>


Anyway -- I went and looked up that HP and it indeed does appear to be shipping with 800MHz DDR2 RAM as a standard option. [Edit= and the Sony does have a T8100 processor.] So the point here is rather moot -- yeah, the 32 bit OS isn't a huge problem, but the HP is so much better statwise that I think the Sony is an inferior choice for other reasons.

The one thing I haven't touched on is quality of engineering. HP is known for having -- not bad machines, but certainly not machines on the cutting edge of design the way Lenovo does (or, if you ask Blacken, Dell now has). A little clunky, not laid out the best. Like I said, though, that beats a company that -- no matter what reputation it has, or is currently riding on, for smart design and excellence in action -- ships people laptops with batteries that get so hot they can ignite. And that's precisely what Sony did with its old Vaio laptops. Was a problem for a long time.

Now, I can't speak to whether or not they've fixed it. [Edit- by 'it' I mean whatever weakness in their QC and design programs let that happen in the first place, I'm relatively sure they fixed their battery issue.] I've heard nothing about it for a while, but that's probably because everyone I know stayed the hell away from Sony computers as a result. If they've turned the corner then it might be worth revisiting the comparison, but as it stands, I'd go with that big HP. And I'd get a metal laptop cooling pad for it to set on, because with all that hardware, I doubt it runs very cool.

Edited by Resonance Wright, 09 June 2009 - 09:50 AM.

[Resonance Wright]

* Not entirely sure if this works with OEM licenses, but standard Vista licenses are valid for both the 32bit and 64bit version; so if you ever feel the need to install 64bit Vista, you can officially order a 64bit disc for 10 bucks from MS (or use any 64bit install CD as long as it is the same version - starter, business, ultimate etc.) and use the key that came with your 32bit install.

Huh. I never heard that.

Then again I always buy OEM versions.

[Resonance Wright]

My friend's laptop got stolen, and he's looking to buy a new one. I'm an Apple guy, so I'm not up to date on all the current PC specs. What Intel processor should he be looking for?

So far this one is that the top of the list:

http://www.sony.co.n...c/vgnfw33gw.jsp

Disregard price at this point because a) it's in New Zealand dollars and b) it's pretty easy to haggle here and get the price lowered significantly.

I just want to make sure that he gets a laptop that won't be obsolete tomorrow.

Thanks.

It really depends on what he does with it. That's a tolerable processor, but the rest of the loadout isn't all that inspiring -- not bad per se, but the selection must be kinda bad if that's what's leading the pack.

[Blacken]

Yeesh. That's a tank of a laptop. If I hadn't bought my Dell last month, I'd be all over that.

[Monbo Jumbo]

thanks RW - I appreciate the time you took to write that up.

decisions decisions - looking also at this new HP from newegg - obviously not the bang for the buck that those refurb deals have.

[Resonance Wright]

thanks RW - I appreciate the time you took to write that up.

decisions decisions - looking also at this new HP from newegg - obviously not the bang for the buck that those refurb deals have.

Glad to help.

Re: the new HP

The processor is nice -- faster, more cache. I'd expect it to be a faster machine overall. It will be a good machine to have for a longer time. And it's new, if that matters to you.

I'm usually a proponent of maxing out the budget when I buy a computer -- spending the money wisely, but spending it all the same -- because for me, a computer is something I'm going to use on a regular basis for a long time, and I'm going to use it as much in the second and third years as I will in the first. To me, that's the sort of think you splurge on; every time you use it you'll have a better experience, you're going to use it a whole lot, and all else being equal, cheaper systems show their age more quickly, so saving a few hundred bucks in the short term might not pay off in the long run.

So generally, I wouldn't be opposed to getting the new model with the faster CPU. But the refurbished deal is really hard to pass up -- it's great bang-for-buck and it's also a great computer, and if you're going to pass it up for more performance, it's hard for me to say you should settle for something with a p8600 (which will be faster, but not a TON faster). Hunt a deal for a system with a T9550, which will cost you all else being equal about $200 more, but at 2.66GHz and a (for a laptop) whopping 6MB of cache on the processor, will be a lot faster.

Basically it comes down to budget. If your budget comfortably stretches to $1200, then get the new HP. If it stretches to $1400 then go get a nice ASUS laptop with the T9550 (Newegg has one, and I have no problem at all recommending an ASUS. It even has a better graphics card.)

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16834220529

Past that? If you just robbed a bank, go get a Falcon Northwest or an Alienware or something. But if you're in a position where that extra dough can be put to good use elsewhere, I think the refurbished HP is likely right about where the sweet spot in the market is for a laptop that size.

One last point -- I know you've said that you're only looking for 17' laptops and don't want anything with a smaller screen, so that's all I've recommended. Just be prepared for the thing to weigh twice as much as a normal laptop. They're called 'desktop replacements' at that size for more than one reason, and I think a lot of people who get them tend to leave them in one spot most of the time. It sounds kinda funny to say 'ten pounds is a lot' but I don't know anyone, period, who's bought a laptop that size who hasn't bitched to me about what a pain in the ass it is to haul one around.

Edited by Resonance Wright, 08 June 2009 - 03:46 PM.

[Monbo Jumbo]

Again - thanks so much RW. - I've had a 17"er before - a Dell Insipron 9300, which fell down the stairs with me last fall - I survived, it didn't. I don't travel much, so the size won't be a constant lugging problem, just occasional.

[cutman1000]

Ok, so if the Sony I linked to above is only a "meh" laptop, would someone please check out the following link to see what's available here in NZ?

http://www.noelleemi...r=topseller-dsc

My friend is not some huge power user. He checks his email, watches divx, surfs the web, uses Office, manages photos, etc. No games or video editing, but he may get into that in the future. He doesn't need a top of the line machine, just something that will last for a few years and (most importantly) is tough. He was very rough on his previous computer.

[JohnnyK]

Huh. I never heard that.

Then again I always buy OEM versions.

http://www.microsoft...ia/default.mspx
That's what I did when I needed the 64bit media for my Vista Business license; cost me 10 bucks for shipping, and that's it (sidenote: I've been too lazy so far to migrate my machine, so I am currently running a 32bit Vista install with 8GB of RAM in the PC )
However, that doesn't work for OEM installs as you cannot order the 64bit media for that. But from what I read, you can install it if you can get the 64bit media from somewhere, although you might then have to activate via phone.

See here: http://forums.anandt...hreadid=2074719

[Resonance Wright]

http://shopap.lenovo...AAF455147670AB2

Or you could get a T series:

http://shopap.lenovo...CDF3E49FC6823CE

both those are from Lenovo New Zealand.

From the list you linked, if you have to choose from that list, the Sony isn't all that bad. There's a couple of HPs and Toshibas with better gear but they're considerably more expensive.

[LoweSox]

Probably coming in late, but I can't say enough about Lenovo. Even when stuff messes up, I'm happy. So I second that.

[cutman1000]

Thanks for the help, RW.

I also want to point out that Apple released new Macbooks today, and the Macbook Pro 13" is a great deal. In fact, I convinced my friend to buy one. Anyone in the market for a new laptop should check them out.

Edited by cutman1000, 09 June 2009 - 01:00 AM.

[Resonance Wright]

Hey, here you go, MJ:

http://stores.channe.....0 Refurbished

a Lenovo w700 laptop workstation with an Intel Core2 Extreme x9100 (3.06 GHz, 6MB L2, 1066 MHz FSB),a 17" WUXGA (1920 X 1200) TFT screen, 4GB worth of PC3-8500 DDR3 SDRAM 1067MHz memory, an 80GB SSD boot drive and a 250 GB, 7200rpm, encrypted storage drive, a DVD burner, 3x3 AGN wireless, an Ultranav with a fingerprint reader, and a nVIDIA NB9E-GLM2 FX2700M video card. Only $2577 refurbished (hey, it'd have cost you $4650 new).

No word on whether it comes with its own car.

(I'd have to be making a lot of money before I could justify spending $2500 on a refurbished laptop, but whoa, would this rig ever be fast.)

[Blacken]

That would also be a massive campfire in your lap.

[Blacken]

I also want to point out that Apple released new Macbooks today, and the Macbook Pro 13" is a great deal.

No. No, it is not. It is a great deal if you like heavily overpaying for a computer, but it is not a great deal in the land of the sane.

(My Dell cost a little under $800 and is superior to that machine in all respects except processor speed, and even that's such a marginal difference to be unimportant. OS X is not a 'feature' worth $400, either.)

[Bleedred]

No. No, it is not. It is a great deal if you like heavily overpaying for a computer, but it is not a great deal in the land of the sane.

(My Dell cost a little under $800 and is superior to that machine in all respects except processor speed, and even that's such a marginal difference to be unimportant. OS X is not a 'feature' worth $400, either.)

Which Dell did you get?

[Blacken]

Which Dell did you get?

Studio 1537. 4GB RAM (I outright laughed at the 2GB in a MacBook "Pro"), 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo (the MBP-13 has a 2.26GHz by default, but you aren't going to notice that 12.5% clock increase in normal use), ATI Mobility Radeon 3450 (the 9400M is something like 2% better in terms of pure graphical output, I call that a wash). Built-in camera, microphone, all the usual crap that used to make a Mac a special pretty flower.

Edited by Blacken, 09 June 2009 - 11:43 AM.

[Monbo Jumbo]

Hey, here you go, MJ:

http://stores.channe.....0 Refurbished

a Lenovo w700 laptop workstation with an Intel Core2 Extreme x9100 (3.06 GHz, 6MB L2, 1066 MHz FSB),a 17" WUXGA (1920 X 1200) TFT screen, 4GB worth of PC3-8500 DDR3 SDRAM 1067MHz memory, an 80GB SSD boot drive and a 250 GB, 7200rpm, encrypted storage drive, a DVD burner, 3x3 AGN wireless, an Ultranav with a fingerprint reader, and a nVIDIA NB9E-GLM2 FX2700M video card. Only $2577 refurbished (hey, it'd have cost you $4650 new).

No word on whether it comes with its own car.

(I'd have to be making a lot of money before I could justify spending $2500 on a refurbished laptop, but whoa, would this rig ever be fast.)

ouch. all that and no blu-ray.

any thoughts on toshiba vs HP?

[Blacken]

ouch. all that and no blu-ray.

any thoughts on toshiba vs HP?

HP's build quality is really, really nice. I haven't fiddled with newer-model Toshibas, but HPs are tanks.

[Jnai]

HPs also have tons of heat issues.

[Blacken]

Still?